npub167kns…lhr40 Krypto I mean that it's true argumentation logically implies ...

Ardainian Right /

npub1lhh…adds

2023-05-09 18:50:18

in reply to nevent1q…nfma

npub167knsj5l2s3vx98yecmm3kkqpf22wmk463jewt3r04xhnh72prqsmlhr40 (npub167k…hr40) Krypto (npub1yuw…8dz7) I mean that it's true argumentation logically implies self-ownership. Self-ownership does not logically imply anarchism. You're born owning yourself into a hostile world with lots of people who want to destroy you. It is entirely logical to just submit to a sovereign who can violently suppress these actors, even though said sovereign is also a threat to violently suppressing you, because your chances of surviving and reproducing(the evolutionary "win condition" of all life) is generally better under the stability of a single violent ruler than under the war of all against all. While the state is a mighty and uncertain threat, it is preferable to the certain threat of a new wolf around every corner, and it empirically is a far more peaceful and effective arrangement than the preceding state of nature. So generally you're better off shutting up and paying your taxes than worrying about every potential person that you meet being a violent predator. A Hobbesian framework does agree with the self-ownership implied by argumentation ethics, it just recommends using that self-ownership quite differently.

Author Public Key

npub1lhhynl54hhajx9fw0rvvv964672mgd90zm9266xnzg05j9p20gfqu5adds

Show more details

Published at

2023-05-09 18:50:18

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "44c11ddfdaf0e47177992ff81d738bde7ad58e3f6f349ea54188910aa8cd5d32", "pubkey": "fdee49fe95bdfb23152e78d8c61755d795b434af16caad68d3121f49142a7a12", "created_at": 1683658218, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "p", "d7ad384a9f5422c314e4ce37b8dac00a54a76ed5d465972e237d4d79dfca08c1", "wss://relay.mostr.pub" ], [ "p", "271d5390676ed2b0c02933546ce3023c960fedd672e466c9d57b330c67e3d39a", "wss://relay.mostr.pub" ], [ "p", "126801de2aebfb7bdb8b98bb13b130f7787d9e0633cf80a47b2f91b0682d7f68", "wss://relay.mostr.pub" ], [ "e", "7697c7568dfdbc29e8864da62e5da6a7d88d1f6c6f6526d9a1ee61ce49c5834a", "wss://relay.mostr.pub", "reply" ], [ "mostr", "https://detroitriotcity.com/objects/6ce08164-fe79-46bc-858a-81360cc05a1b" ] ], "content": "nostr:npub167knsj5l2s3vx98yecmm3kkqpf22wmk463jewt3r04xhnh72prqsmlhr40 nostr:npub1yuw48yr8dmftpspfxd2xeccz8jtqlmwkwtjxdjw40vescelr6wdqj28dz7 I mean that it's true argumentation logically implies self-ownership. Self-ownership does not logically imply anarchism. You're born owning yourself into a hostile world with lots of people who want to destroy you. It is entirely logical to just submit to a sovereign who can violently suppress these actors, even though said sovereign is also a threat to violently suppressing you, because your chances of surviving and reproducing(the evolutionary \"win condition\" of all life) is generally better under the stability of a single violent ruler than under the war of all against all. While the state is a mighty and uncertain threat, it is preferable to the certain threat of a new wolf around every corner, and it empirically is a far more peaceful and effective arrangement than the preceding state of nature. So generally you're better off shutting up and paying your taxes than worrying about every potential person that you meet being a violent predator. A Hobbesian framework does agree with the self-ownership implied by argumentation ethics, it just recommends using that self-ownership quite differently.", "sig": "128c32c33316fe133de950bb93035a9627950a6b904ae400dfa864fb2aab03d1ffbef79ba3265762b3bfa7b975bad9037eaa379a52e3cae778a17fdf3de480af" }