Podcast for 4-4-2011

[MrBogosity]

What's the download rate on the recent podcasts compared to the initial one?

Both feed hits and site visitors are growing--steady, which is good. But none of the episodes have matched the 420 hits the pilot got.

[MrBogosity]

I was about to suggest something like that. Maybe a short ad for the podcasts kinda like the vid for the first one, with a small preview and the list of references/links. Itd be a way to keep subscribers on YouTube abreast of new podcasts and to advertise to some who may have missed the initial video.

Not bad. You mean, do every week like I did for the first one?

[Virgil0211]

Not bad. You mean, do every week like I did for the first one?

Yeah, exactly. Kinda like the way news stations tease their upcoming stories.

[Travis Retriever]

What is your opinion about veganism anyway Shane?

Mine is basically "If you don't eat meat cause you don't like it, cool.  More for the rest of us.  If you don't eat meat cause you think it makes you more moral, kindly get over yourself."

It's when they, or anyone on either side, start spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense (e.g. Fathead and Super-Size Me) that gets me irate.
I fail to see why they should get any slack on this front, if any of the other conspiracy mongering, scientifically/logically/economically illiterate woos aren't getting any.

[Virgil0211]

Speaking of John David Wellman, here's a small exchange he and I got into on his blog. His behavior almost makes me think he deserves an honorable mention for next week's idiot extraordinaire segment for continued acts of extraordinary idiocy. =P

(His in red, mine in blue)

This fellow based his entire argument against me on a small fragment of my first of seven videos in a series -- a video which constituted a position statement that was backed up in the subsequent six videos, and this backing included a response to every single point made in the podcast. Had he addressed the arguments in the subsequent six videos -- indeed, had he so much as hinted at their existence to his audience -- then one might be justified in saying that he was mocking my argumentation, rather than my position. But as matters stand, I see no evidence of "higher standards" here. Just better equipment.

But hey, free advertising!


Your following six episodes do not cover the fact that:

1. The constitution is something the government swears to rather than the people, and is thus not an example of a social contract.

2. Children cannot enter into contracts in any sense, rendering any such contracts invalid.

3. Tacit consent cannot be used as a basis for a valid contract.

And this is just off the top of my head. These are things you got completely wrong, and work as a basis for the rest of your arguments. Unless you can somehow respond to those critiques, everything you built upon them is worthless.

If you want to try and argue your points, you're quite welcome to visit the forum. Unfortunately, you can't ban or moderate anyone there, so you'll be without your safety net.

1. Addressed in part 2.

2. Addressed in part 5.

3. Addressed in the comments of parts 1, 3 and 4.

Additionally, the validity of any attempt to attack social contract theory from a legal, as opposed to philosophical, standpoint was addressed in parts 5 and 6.

If you want to call my own moderating impartiality into question, I don't fault you for that -- I do, after all, have to watch my blood pressure. (And, in your case, I don't want to injure your pride.) But that doesn't mean your own moderating ability is worth a damn, and I see no need for duplication of efforts.

So you can talk to me here, and enjoy probable success so long as you remain civil -- or you can talk about me elsewhere, and enjoy guaranteed success until your testicles simply can't produce any more. Your choice.


No, as was pointed out before, you simply straw-manned or reasserted your original points. Your errors weren't errors of reasoning, but errors of fact. You cannot address those with anything but a retraction.

You appealed to common practice with contracts in just about every one of your videos. Common practice does not conform to your argument, and therefore cannot be utilized to support your assertions. The contract law Shane and myself are referring to is based in common law tradition, which describes contract practices since before the United States was formed. The way you've described the social contract contradicts every form of practice determining valid contracts for the past 250+ years. The only way you can mount a defense from this standpoint is to argue for a special case for the social contract that allows it to contradict established contract practices. In this case, all you've done is proven that it is not a valid contract, and instead something else with the special power to exercise force against those who do not consent. You've gone full circle into arguing for the divine right of kings.

You don't get it. Social contract theory cannot be argued from ANY legalistic standpoint. Its roots are based in modern philosophy, and it is argued on that basis. Now I'm willing to be proved wrong here: was there a point in my videos where I argued that, just as X is legal, so the social contract must be legal?

Straw man. This isn't about a legal technicality. This is about standards by which contracts are made. Common law traditions, the basis for contract law, is simply a codified version of those standards. If it doesn't meet those standards, chances are that you can't argue it's a valid contract from any philosophical standpoint unless you employ special reasoning on the part of the state. This is a fallacy known as special pleading, commonly seen with creationists in the form of "Everything necessarily has a cause, therefore there cannot be an infinite chain of causes going back through time, therefore there must be some kind of uncaused cause, therefore god is the first cause." It makes special rules for god that don't apply to the rest of the universe (everything has a cause except god).

This is the third time I've had to clarify this for you, and I know I'm not the only one to have done so.


Your "clarifications" are nothing more than pathetic whining to the effect that I'm not making the arguments that Anarchistic Evangelism For Dummies says I ought to be.

It is not special pleading to say that the "social contract," a philosophical term, has features that make it different from a "contract," a legal term. If it were called "social agreement" instead of "social contract," which would perhaps would be more accurate, you wouldn't be having this hissy fit. (Well, I expect you would, but you'd find some other excuse for it.) But the term has been around since Rosseau, and can't really be gotten rid of now. That doesn't give you license to make the term mean something it doesn't.

By the way, I can appreciate your desire to give your anarchitopian wet dreams some legitimacy by comparing the opposition to creationists, but it doesn't really work unless your philosophy of religion is above a kindergarten level. The "first cause is special pleading" argument was addressed by theists a long time ago by pointing out that infinite regresses are absurd, and that calling into question the application of the higher-order cause does not exempt the universe from the law of causality. The first cause argument does fail, but not for the reason you think.

Now, since you gave no direct response to the question, "was there a point in my videos where I argued that, just as X is legal, so the social contract must be legal," I take it you found no such instances. Is that correct?

'Your "clarifications" are nothing more than pathetic whining to the effect that I'm not making the arguments that Anarchistic Evangelism For Dummies says I ought to be.'

Projecting a bit, aren't we? I'm clearing up your straw-man of my argument. Others have pointed this out to you several times. Nice attempt at the appeal to ridicule, though. Did you get that out of your copy of 'How I learned to stop thinking and Love the overlords?'

'It is not special pleading to say that the "social contract," a philosophical term, has features that make it different from a "contract," a legal term.'

That's the DEFINITION of special pleading.

'If it were called "social agreement" instead of "social contract," which would perhaps would be more accurate, you wouldn't be having this hissy fit. (Well, I expect you would, but you'd find some other excuse for it.)'

It still wouldn't meet the standards by which any valid 'agreement' could be considered voluntary, and it still wouldn't change the fact that you described and defended it from the terms of a contract. Your 'social agreement' concept could be used to argue that a person born into slavery has volunteered for slavery. The primary difference is that you're arguing for a state instead of a slavemaster. More special pleading, and we're again being led back to that old concept of the divine right of kings.

'But the term has been around since Rosseau, and can't really be gotten rid of now. That doesn't give you license to make the term mean something it doesn't.'

It's spelled Rousseau, sir. If you're going to drop names, try to spell them correctly. Now, if we're getting into this part, then we can go to the original meaning of the social contract (which you were NOT using) and discuss whether or not the exchange between the state and the person of sovereignty for order and rule of law is actually voluntary. For this contract to be voluntary, one must be able to express nonconsent. And no, the ability to move away and surrender one's territory/possessions doesn't count. This is called 'duress'. If this were consent, then one could argue that a person held at gunpoint couldn't complain that the attacker took their money because they gave it up freely in exchange for not being shot. The only other way you could somehow define this would be if you could prove that the United States government has an initial and overriding claim to the land you own, which comes with its own myriad contradictions.

'By the way, I can appreciate your desire to give your anarchitopian wet dreams some legitimacy by comparing the opposition to creationists, but it doesn't really work unless your philosophy of religion is above a kindergarten level. The "first cause is special pleading" argument was addressed by theists a long time ago by pointing out that infinite regresses are absurd, and that calling into question the application of the higher-order cause does not exempt the universe from the law of causality. The first cause argument does fail, but not for the reason you think.'

False dilemma. It can fail for multiple reasons, and the argument you presented doesn't make it any less special pleading.

'Now, since you gave no direct response to the question, "was there a point in my videos where I argued that, just as X is legal, so the social contract must be legal," I take it you found no such instances. Is that correct?'

Since you have made no attempt to defend the fact that your version of the social contract contradicts established practices of voluntary exchanges and the laws that the contract supposedly establishes, I take it you have no response and must admit that such a 'contract' is involuntary. Is that correct?

See? I can do it too. It's not that hard. As I've pointed out to you again and again, the law was brought up because it reflected practices of contract and voluntary agreements. If the contract violated those practices, you wouldn't have cause to call it voluntary as no-one would enter into it by other standards, unless specifically stated otherwise, at which point you would have to find some evidence that this was acceptable

If your next post contains anything other than the word "Yes" or the word "No," it will be deleted, and you will be forever banned from my website.

Was there a point in my videos where I argued that, just as X is legal, so the social contract must be legal?

Your question is invalid, as that was not my argument. If you wish to ban me for making an argument other than the one you were prepared to rebut, be my guest. You'll only prove correct the impression that you give off to others, that you're incapable of comprehending the arguments you attempt to wield.

EDIT: Almost forgot to add relevant links.

http://davidjohnwellman.blogspot.com/2011/04/report-from-galts-gulch.html#disqus_thread

http://davidjohnwellman.blogspot.com/feeds/3234195520743222208/comments/default

For some reason, the comments disappeared to the second link halfway through and a new comment system was in place. I haven't seen this on any of the other blogs I follow, so I don't know if this is blogger renovating their commenting system, or JDW being a douche. Considering his threats to delete/ban me, I wouldn't put it past him.

[Travis Retriever]

@Virgil0211: O_O  God I wish I had the verbal stamina/skill that you have, man!
Well, until SMF gets that individual post up/down thumb ability, here, have an anti-bogon!

[Virgil0211]

@Virgil0211: O_O  God I wish I had the verbal stamina/skill that you have, man!
Well, until SMF gets that individual post up/down thumb ability, here, have an anti-bogon!

Lol. Is it any wonder I have trouble getting out and exercising when I waste this much time on the internet? =P

EDIT: And he finally blocked me at 4:37 PM. Class act, this guy...

[Travis Retriever]

Lol. Is it any wonder I have trouble getting out and exercising when I waste this much time on the internet? =P

Seconded.

EDIT: And he finally blocked me at 4:37 PM. Class act, this guy...

Why am I not surprised? It's no wonder he won't debate on this forum.  He wouldn't be able to block/ban people like that.

[Travis Retriever]

His behavior almost makes me think he deserves an honorable mention for next week's idiot extraordinaire segment for continued acts of extraordinary idiocy. =P

And cowardice, and dishonesty...need I go on?

[Virgil0211]

And cowardice, and dishonesty...need I go on?

You think that's bad? You should see the comment he posted after he deleted my last one and blocked me.

You were warned.

And it's just as well. I know from experience that there are anarchists and libertarians who are capable of admitting they're wrong without lapsing into spelling flames and "I know you are but what am I" jabs that most of us outgrew in the third grade. And who are capable of answering a fucking question the first time I ask. Or at least the second or third time.

You don't understand what an invalid question is. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" can be an invalid question because it contains the assumption that you're married and have beaten your wife in the past. But "Did I say X?" is not an invalid question because it assumes nothing more than that I exist. You simply did not want to answer it, because you know the answer throws your entire line of argument against the social contract out the window.

Nor do you understand what special pleading is. Exempting an entity from a category is only invalid if one appeals to an irrelevant characteristic of that entity -- for example, "People and groups of people are allowed to own rights to property, except for government, because I don't like it."

You don't volunteer into a social contract you're born into by being born into it; you volunteer for it by coming of age and electing to stay. No one has ever been able to explain to me why parents should be able to choose residence, schooling, religion and language for their children, but should not be allowed to choose government for them. This is common sense. And being given the choice to abide by the laws or leave the country is no more duress than being given the choice to pay rent or move out of your apartment. Again, common sense -- something you have to discard entirely to be an anarchist.

Do I even need to say anything? Funny how his fallacies and straw men become even more blatant when people can't respond to him directly. Perhaps that's his whole reason for trying to keep everything on his own channels.

[Travis Retriever]

You think that's bad? You should see the comment he posted after he deleted my last one and blocked me.

Do I even need to say anything? Funny how his fallacies and straw men become even more blatant when people can't respond to him directly. Perhaps that's his whole reason for trying to keep everything on his own channels.

I'll say. I was bit annoyed by this: "And who are capable of answering a fucking question the first time I ask. Or at least the second or third time."
Did he not read your explanation as to why the question was invalid?

As for the question itself: "Was there a point in my videos where I argued that, just as X is legal, so the social contract must be legal?"
Then why did he even bring up contract law and common practices of contracts if that wasn't his point in the first place?  If that's why, he's backpedaling right now to try and save face, just like the creationists and moon-hoaxers. If not, why did he use it in support of the social contract to begin with?  Hell, why even ARGUE with Virgil0211 and Lord T Hawkeye about what he just admitted is a red herring, instead of simply correcting his error and apologizing?
He shot himself in the foot by starting that bit with this little turd nugget: "Social contract theory cannot be argued from ANY legalistic standpoint."

[VectorM]

I really just don't bother with people, who make you watch 100 videos and find the other 3000 comments where they presumably managed to explain their positions. Not to mention how many times it turns out they didn't explain shit.

[Travis Retriever]

@VectorM:  I know the feeling.


As for DavidJohnWellman, I'd have to say that Guncriminal really put it best:

"Oh, yes, it's our old friend, the social contract. [It's] probably the biggest political hoax since the divine right of kings.  Yes, you're bound at birth by our contract that you never signed and were too young to understand the implications of anyway. [Which acts as a justification to get you] to serve people that you may or may not want to serve with no get out clause*.  No James, you never agreed to any of this crap. You were brought up with it, and I was as well.  But the thing is, where we part ways is that is that you—like most of the people in the country—grew up assuming its legitimacy and moral superiority, and never bothered to question it.  Go back 200 years ago, you'd have defended slavery.  And go back 400 and you'd have defended the absolute monarchy." --GunCriminal, 13:53 to the very end (Emphasis added by me)

*Sorry, but "you can just move" isn't a get out clause.  That's called duress, as Lord T Hawkeye, Virgil0211, Shane and others have explained.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]j4ae9MTrxFk[/yt]
More pwnage of David.

[MrBogosity]

CNBC just posted a story on inflation being closer to 10%: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42551209