The catastrophic failure of progressive policy

[MisterBeale]

I agree.

You agree with the tinfoil hat view that “events which occur are arranged at levels far ABOVE governments”? Bwahahahahaha! Why am I not surprised?

In his OP he stated. . .

Had Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush been in office instead of Bill Clinton, 9/11 never happens.

That Time Ronald Reagan Hosted Those 'Freedom Fighters' At The Oval Office

Wait....let me get this straight. Your “proof” that I’m wrong that 9/11 never occurs if Ronald Reagan is in office is to post a picture of the people behind it sitting in the Oval Office as our allies? Bwahahahahaha! Wow - you really showed me!

The over arching reason I find your OP specious is b/c you are a righteous man.



In most instances YOU would be the first to attack a fake news story from WaPo.

You KNOW a story from WaPo is not to be trusted. WaPo IS part of the Deep State!

Why is it we can pick and choose which articles suit us and which ones to trust? Trump has attacked this fake news source so many times I have lost count. Ever since they published the following CIA sponsored piece, I don't take anything they print seriously at all, nor do I believe in the establishment pushed paradigm of reality.

Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group
Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group

The truth is, after Daniel Pearl was executed, every international source tells us Omar Saeed Sheikh was the master mind behind Pearl's kidnapping and killing.

Briton convicted of killing Daniel Pearl attempts suicide in Pakistan prison

Daniel Pearl killer Omar Saeed Sheikh tries to kill self

Pakistan foils plot to spring Daniel Pearl killer from jail

And this one should ring alarm bells for you. . .

"Reports in the British and Indian press that Saeed continues to receive visitors and communicate with followers from jail disturb the Pearls. Normally, those sentenced to death are allowed only short visits with family members and are not permitted to speak to the press, Haq said. "It hurts that he is still operating from prison," Pearl's mother, Ruth, said.

Saeed has been linked to other crimes since he was arrested. After two assassination attempts on Musharraf, prison authorities moved Saeed from Hyderabad to Adiala prison near Islamabad in January 2004. He was questioned there about his connection to the man behind the plots, Amjad Hussain Farooqi, a militant with links to al-Qaeda. Farooqi, who also played a role in orchestrating Pearl's kidnapping, died in a shoot-out with Pakistani security forces in September 2005."
Daniel Pearl: An Open Case

Apparently, this Omar Saeed Sheikh is a double or triple agent. Working for British Intel, the ISI, and maybe even the CIA? Who can really be sure? And the MSM would have us believe he has gone rogue.

Then, Benazir Bhutto let's us in on a choice piece of intel., it turns out that this Omar Saeed Sheikh, who remember, is working for Pakistani and Western intel agencies, and maybe Al-Queda? Is the guy who tied up loose ends and took out former CIA agent OSAMA bin Laden before he could leak anything more. . . .




Yet you want to believe a known purveyor of fake news, a CIA propaganda disinformation outlet, and source with a conflict of interest? It's war propaganda meant to take away your liberty. The Constitution will never be restored if you keep up the divide and conquer paradigm.

"Readers of a Post story on the CIA — whether about drones or a still-secret torture report, to name just two topics — should be informed of the Post/Bezos/Amazon/CIA financial ties. In the absence of such in-story disclosure, there is every reason to believe that many readers will be unaware that the Post’s owner is someone with a major financial stake in an Amazon-CIA deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars.


If Amazon’s $600 million multiyear cloud contract with the CIA is a small fraction of the company’s revenue, there is clear intent for it to grow larger. And $600 million is, by itself, hardly insignificant; let’s remember that Mr. Bezos bought the Post for less than half that amount.


“We look forward to a successful relationship with the CIA,” a statement from Amazon said two months ago. In public statements, Mr. Bezos and Amazon have made clear that they view this as a growing part of Amazon’s business: a feather in the corporate cap of the company in its drive to increase market share of such business operations. This is intended as a major and expansive income source for Amazon and for its CEO, Mr. Bezos, whose personal wealth of $25 billion is a consequence of Amazon’s financial gains.


Why not provide a sentence in the Post’s substantive coverage of CIA activities, to the effect that “The Post’s owner Jeff Bezos is the largest stakeholder in Amazon, which has a $600 million contract with the CIA”?


By declining to provide such disclosure, the Post is failing the transparency test when coverage of the CIA falls outside of the circumscribed areas where your letter says Post policy now provides for disclosure (“CIA contracting practices, the CIA’s use of cloud services, big-data initiatives at the CIA, Amazon’s pursuit of cloud services as a line of business, and Amazon corporate matters in general”)."
The Washington Post, Amazon and the CIA
The Washington Post, Amazon and the CIA

 

[MisterBeale]

I hope I'm around when the state turns against the statists. That way I can die laughing.

See...I hope I’m around to see the state restore constitutional government. But that’s the difference between you and I. I’m educated, you’re not. I want constitutional government, you get an erection at the thought of a Hollywood movie come true.

Actually, I am very educated.

I have dedicated my life to trying to understand the best type of organization for human society and for humans to live under.

At university I studied Anthropology, Philosophy, and Government.

Brian and I have a slight disagreement over how that can best be achieved I believe.

While he thinks complete anarchy is best, I don't think that would be beneficial. We are a very advanced species, and there are higher motivating societal values than material concerns. We should never forget the higher truths endowed by the creator.

If you study the human species, you understand that we are, as a specious, communal, IWO, organized, empathetic, and we need one another to survive.

We evolved on a tribal level.

OTH, any organized government that has it's interests beyond the representation greater than those who have direct input and involvement usually leads to tyranny.

From my study of history, the only governments that were superior to the US in terms of liberty are confederations. However, in a world filled with external threats, the Constitution and federation seemed to be a necessity. This has had some inherent weaknesses that were unforeseen though.

You and I have a lot ideological in commonalities. There is no need for us to be adversaries. Our adversary is a common foe. It is our perception of reality that is the difference. Information, and the trust in that information is the key here.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

While he thinks complete anarchy is best, I don't think that would be beneficial. We are a very advanced species, and there are higher motivating societal values than material concerns. We should never forget the higher truths endowed by the creator.

If you study the human species, you understand that we are, as a specious, communal, IWO, organized, empathetic, and we need one another to survive.

We evolved on a tribal level.

OTH, any organized government that has it's interests beyond the representation greater than those who have direct input and involvement usually leads to tyranny.

From my study of history, the only governments that were superior to the US in terms of liberty are confederations. However, in a world filled with external threats, the Constitution and federation seemed to be a necessity. This has had some inherent weaknesses that were unforeseen though.

You and I have a lot ideological in commonalities. There is no need for us to be adversaries. Our adversary is a common foe. It is our perception of reality that is the difference. Information, and the trust in that information is the key here.

I just want to clarify that anarchy, as an anti-political position, does not obviate organization and cooperation. As you noted, this is simply human nature. The idea that government is the sole viable expression of that nature on a large scale is an unfounded assumption. In fact, government is the antithesis of cooperation, as it must include coercion, lest it become something other than government.

Government is an external authority, relative to the individual. It implies a moral claim - the right to rule, not merely the ability. In our country, this right is said to be founded upon "consent of the governed". However, since not everyone under government's rule expressly consents, a perversion of the notion of consent must be accepted in order to justify this "right" - this is called "implied" consent.

Implied consent is invalid because it's established unilaterally, with no input from the "consenting" party. One side determines the terms of the implication, the other is made subject to it. For implied consent to be valid, both parties would first have to agree to what will constitute the implication; which would actually make it expressed consent. So "implied consent" is seen to be a thing that can never truly exist.

The "higher truths endowed by the creator" include the unalienable, equal rights of man. There can be no such thing as valid authority of one man over another. There can be no such thing as inequality of rights, such that one man may have an exclusive right to make law which another man is obliged to obey. There can be no such thing as "morality by consensus" such that representation would suffice to justify the inherently immoral claim to authority. The fundamental, inescapable truth of unalienable, equal rights is what compels one to the anarchist position by logical and moral necessity. Once this is acknowledged, we can start talking about logical, moral solutions to man's problems.

 

[MisterBeale]

While he thinks complete anarchy is best, I don't think that would be beneficial. We are a very advanced species, and there are higher motivating societal values than material concerns. We should never forget the higher truths endowed by the creator.

If you study the human species, you understand that we are, as a specious, communal, IWO, organized, empathetic, and we need one another to survive.

We evolved on a tribal level.

OTH, any organized government that has it's interests beyond the representation greater than those who have direct input and involvement usually leads to tyranny.

From my study of history, the only governments that were superior to the US in terms of liberty are confederations. However, in a world filled with external threats, the Constitution and federation seemed to be a necessity. This has had some inherent weaknesses that were unforeseen though.

You and I have a lot ideological in commonalities. There is no need for us to be adversaries. Our adversary is a common foe. It is our perception of reality that is the difference. Information, and the trust in that information is the key here.

I just want to clarify that anarchy, as an anti-political position, does not obviate organization and cooperation. As you noted, this is simply human nature. The idea that government is the sole viable expression of that nature on a large scale is an unfounded assumption. In fact, government is the antithesis of cooperation, as it must include coercion, lest it become something other than government.

Government is an external authority, relative to the individual. It implies a moral claim - the right to rule, not merely the ability. In our country, this right is said to be founded upon "consent of the governed". However, since not everyone under government's rule expressly consents, a perversion of the notion of consent must be accepted in order to justify this "right" - this is called "implied" consent.

Implied consent is invalid because it's established unilaterally, with no input from the "consenting" party. One side determines the terms of the implication, the other is made subject to it. For implied consent to be valid, both parties would first have to agree to what will constitute the implication; which would actually make it expressed consent. So "implied consent" is seen to be a thing that can never truly exist.

The "higher truths endowed by the creator" include the unalienable, equal rights of man. There can be no such thing as valid authority of one man over another. There can be no such thing as inequality of rights, such that one man may have an exclusive right to make law which another man is obliged to obey. There can be no such thing as "morality by consensus" such that representation would suffice to justify the inherently immoral claim to authority. The fundamental, inescapable truth of unalienable, equal rights is what compels one to the anarchist position by logical and moral necessity. Once this is acknowledged, we can start talking about logical, moral solutions to man's problems.

Very nice exposition, I can't disagree with any of it.

That said, again, it ignores fundamental realities of daily living. Folks with kids, jobs, parents who are elderly, the poor, disabled, the weak that need to be taken care of by society, and of course, things we as a community need to take care of together, none of this is addressed.

We can toss it off and say, it will take care of itself and ascribe it to the nature of "spontaneous order," however, spontaneous order does not necessarily feed all the children, solve the tragedy of the commons, take care of the elderly and the weakest among us, etc. Nor does it ever, in any meaningful way, provide binding arbitration.



Humans, because they evolved in a tribe, actually require an authority. If they are left with out an authority that they subvert their will to, an authoritarian one will rise which they will gladly give their sovereignty over to.

Most folks are too weak and insecure to be totally free, it is against their biological nature.

So choose, min-anarchical confederation, Republican Democracy, or some form of authoritarian (monarchist/fascist/communist/oligopoly) dictatorship. There will never by a society ruled by any type of anarchy, it is against our biology.

Escape from Freedom - Wikipedia

 

[Brian Blackwell]

While he thinks complete anarchy is best, I don't think that would be beneficial. We are a very advanced species, and there are higher motivating societal values than material concerns. We should never forget the higher truths endowed by the creator.

If you study the human species, you understand that we are, as a specious, communal, IWO, organized, empathetic, and we need one another to survive.

We evolved on a tribal level.

OTH, any organized government that has it's interests beyond the representation greater than those who have direct input and involvement usually leads to tyranny.

From my study of history, the only governments that were superior to the US in terms of liberty are confederations. However, in a world filled with external threats, the Constitution and federation seemed to be a necessity. This has had some inherent weaknesses that were unforeseen though.

You and I have a lot ideological in commonalities. There is no need for us to be adversaries. Our adversary is a common foe. It is our perception of reality that is the difference. Information, and the trust in that information is the key here.

I just want to clarify that anarchy, as an anti-political position, does not obviate organization and cooperation. As you noted, this is simply human nature. The idea that government is the sole viable expression of that nature on a large scale is an unfounded assumption. In fact, government is the antithesis of cooperation, as it must include coercion, lest it become something other than government.

Government is an external authority, relative to the individual. It implies a moral claim - the right to rule, not merely the ability. In our country, this right is said to be founded upon "consent of the governed". However, since not everyone under government's rule expressly consents, a perversion of the notion of consent must be accepted in order to justify this "right" - this is called "implied" consent.

Implied consent is invalid because it's established unilaterally, with no input from the "consenting" party. One side determines the terms of the implication, the other is made subject to it. For implied consent to be valid, both parties would first have to agree to what will constitute the implication; which would actually make it expressed consent. So "implied consent" is seen to be a thing that can never truly exist.

The "higher truths endowed by the creator" include the unalienable, equal rights of man. There can be no such thing as valid authority of one man over another. There can be no such thing as inequality of rights, such that one man may have an exclusive right to make law which another man is obliged to obey. There can be no such thing as "morality by consensus" such that representation would suffice to justify the inherently immoral claim to authority. The fundamental, inescapable truth of unalienable, equal rights is what compels one to the anarchist position by logical and moral necessity. Once this is acknowledged, we can start talking about logical, moral solutions to man's problems.

Very nice exposition, I can't disagree with any of it.

That said, again, it ignores fundamental realities of daily living. Folks with kids, jobs, parents who are elderly, the poor, disabled, the weak that need to be taken care of by society, and of course, things we as a community need to take care of together, none of this is addressed.

We can toss it off and say, it will take care of itself and ascribe it to the nature of "spontaneous order," however, spontaneous order does not necessarily feed all the children, solve the tragedy of the commons, take care of the elderly and the weakest among us, etc. Nor does it ever, in any meaningful way, provide binding arbitration.



Humans, because they evolved in a tribe, actually require an authority. If they are left with out an authority that they subvert their will to, an authoritarian one will rise which they will gladly give their sovereignty over to.

Most folks are too weak and insecure to be totally free, it is against their biological nature.

So choose, min-anarchical confederation, Republican Democracy, or some form of authoritarian (monarchist/fascist/communist/oligopoly) dictatorship. There will never by a society ruled by any type of anarchy, it is against our biology.

Escape from Freedom - Wikipedia

I agree that there will never be a society ruled by anarchy, because anarchy is - by literal etymological definition - the complete absence of rulers. (Just a little cheap shot there, I know what you meant hahaha). I don't typically listen to Stefan, but I will listen to the shared video in its entirety on the basis of respect for your recommendation. I am also excited to take a look at "Escape from Freedom"; I've not heard of it before.

Your argument is essentially "logic and morality be damned, we need government for the benefits it provides". Every immoral act promises a benefit - that's why people act immorally. The rapist gets sex without having to court or otherwise persuade the target individual. The mugger gets quick cash without having to provide any meaningful contribution to society via labor. I simply cannot believe that you're content to lie in bed with such dogs.

This means that your fear of what would happen in the absence of government must be temporarily clouding your judgement. If you agree that men have inherent, equal rights, then you acknowledge that external authority is a direct violation of these rights and thus immoral. In light of this, to say that "Humans... require an authority" is to claim that government is a "necessary evil", which literally means that evil is an absolute necessity for successful human society. It's to assert that 100% pervasive morality would be a detriment to the species. Is this really consistent with your moral principles? Is this even logical, considering that immorality is both the cited problem, and the proposed solution?

I agree that most folks are too weak and insecure right now to be totally free, and thus a power vacuum would be created in the immediate absence of government. But we must recognize that the vacuum is not created by the absence itself, but by the people's misguided desire for the (false) promise of security and guidance offered by their enslavement. So what's to be done? Throw in the towel? Resign ourselves to eternal domination? Because that's precisely what you're concluding and condoning when you support an immoral institution of coercive violence (no matter how small) on the basis that others are too weak (and thus immoral) to handle freedom. Can you see, however, that it's not others in that case, but you as well?

To point to others' immorality (denial of the unalienable rights of themselves and others) as a basis for your own immoral support of external authority is to simply become one of that immoral throng. The next man may then point to your immorality to justify his own. So unless you're satisfied with this deplorably low bar of moral expectation for yourself, then the answer cannot be "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." It also cannot be "overthrow the government this afternoon."

The answer, then, is the only solution that actually solves - the moral uplift of humanity. Yet most will dismiss this suggestion as "pie in the sky"; but what they're really doing is tossing aside the opportunity for a truly peaceful, prosperous society because it's "dressed in overalls and looks like work" (Edison).

Education is the path to justice and freedom. As the cultural consciousness rises, external authority will fade away naturally through lack of attention and compliance. First understanding, then adopting and disseminating principles of sound reason, natural law morality, personal psychology, etc. is the only work that holds any promise for mankind's transition into the next phase of its social evolution. But this journey begins with the self. We must be willing to take in knowledge openly, evaluate it soundly, and - most importantly - act from the wisdom thus derived.

We are the only person over whom we have valid authority. We must exert this authority over self, and be the change we want to see in the world. This is why the anarchist is obliged by moral necessity to his position, and why he relentlessly implores others to employ courage and steadfast resolve in committing themselves to living according to right principles. For man to be free, we must first have a morally satisfactory answer to the question, "When others point to me, what position can they justify by my example?

 

[MisterBeale]

Your argument is essentially "logic and morality be damned, we need government for the benefits it provides". Every immoral act promises a benefit - that's why people act immorally. The rapist gets sex without having to court or otherwise persuade the target individual. The mugger gets quick cash without having to provide any meaningful contribution to society via labor. I simply cannot believe that you're content to lie in bed with such dogs.

Nope, that is NOT my argument at all.

Your entire post went off into a place that was unnecessary.

You are preaching to the choir.

What I am saying is that the majority of humanity is far too lazy to take agency for their freedom, no man is an island.

In my study of primatology, my belief that humans do not infinite natural rights with out regard to the responsibilities to the families and communities that raised became evident. Even the beta chimp or gorilla that loses a fight to the alpha, still stays in the tribe and doesn't stalk off to leave the group for a reason, he still obeys the mores and social protocols of the group.

I, like you, would like to believe that there will be a time when the sum total of humanity would rise above the need for government. That time will not come until it rises above the need for shiny things and material hordes of wealth and power as a substitute for self worth. Man is a poltical animal, denying this does us no useful good. He is an economic one as well. Denying this does us no useful good either.

Until we look these truths square in the eye, making progress on this issue will be difficult. Would you give up your PC and your devices to make sure the person starving next door had a meal to eat for just one week? What if you knew it was they had a drinking and a drug problem? These are real questions with no obvious answers, talking about black and white morality and immorality is easy in the abstract. . . .

So you are charging at windmills like the man from la Mancha if all you do is talk about philosophical ideals, for I will forever be in agreement with you.

When the rubber meets the road, real people only care about our inherent nature and practical solutions, that is what we discuss here.



Oh, and just an aside, although that Fromm character makes some cogent points, be very guarded against Critical Theory, it is a pretty corrosive force in our society.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Your argument is essentially "logic and morality be damned, we need government for the benefits it provides". Every immoral act promises a benefit - that's why people act immorally. The rapist gets sex without having to court or otherwise persuade the target individual. The mugger gets quick cash without having to provide any meaningful contribution to society via labor. I simply cannot believe that you're content to lie in bed with such dogs.

Nope, that is NOT my argument at all.

Your entire post went off into a place that was unnecessary.

You are preaching to the choir.

What I am saying is that the majority of humanity is far too lazy to take agency for their freedom, no man is an island.

In my study of primatology, my belief that humans do not infinite natural rights with out regard to the responsibilities to the families and communities that raised became evident. Even the beta chimp or gorilla that loses a fight to the alpha, still stays in the tribe and doesn't stalk off to leave the group for a reason, he still obeys the mores and social protocols of the group.

I, like you, would like to believe that there will be a time when the sum total of humanity would rise above the need for government. That time will not come until it rises above the need for shiny things and material hordes of wealth and power as a substitute for self worth. Man is a poltical animal, denying this does us no useful good. He is an economic one as well. Denying this does us no useful good either.

Until we look these truths square in the eye, making progress on this issue will be difficult. Would you give up your PC and your devices to make sure the person starving next door had a meal to eat for just one week? What if you knew it was they had a drinking and a drug problem? These are real questions with no obvious answers, talking about black and white morality and immorality is easy in the abstract. . . .

So you are charging at windmills like the man from la Mancha if all you do is talk about philosophical ideals, for I will forever be in agreement with you.

When the rubber meets the road, real people only care about our inherent nature and practical solutions, that is what we discuss here.



Oh, and just an aside, although that Fromm character makes some cogent points, be very guarded against Critical Theory, it is a pretty corrosive force in our society.

Thank you for the warning against this crafty Fromm!

I know you are liberty-minded, and this is a discussion between friends, but I don’t see how your support of any government on the basis of “need” places you outside the description in my previous post. The “necessary evil” is still evil, and to condone it for any reason is to feed into the immorality cited as the necessity. It is to hold a position that dooms mankind to eternal domination because you are waiting for others to be moral first, and they are waiting for you.

Do you see the necessity of being the change we want to see? There is no justifiable reason to wait, as the waiting itself is the only delay. You have no power to force another’s hand, but you have authority over yourself. Someone has to go first; if not one who already firmly understands these principles, than who?

I agree that it will take many raising their consciousness before the transition can be made with lasting effect, so lead by example and help them along as best you can. Your shift will not rob those others of their “necessary evil” before their time. Not until they are ready will the transition come. But you’re ready now, so set off and bid them to come along. A shepherd waiting on sheep will be rooted eternally.

I am not the man I was before coming to this realization. I recognized the invalidity and immorality of external control, turned my back on it in every way I could without martyring myself, and as an unexpected side-effect became more generous, more courageous, more engaged in societal uplift, and more neighborly in general.

We don’t need to hit on every point with people. Coming into alignment with the core principles of natural law is a subscription service that will yield ongoing insight on many fronts. But we cannot ride that ship to greener shores with one foot still on the dock.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Your argument is essentially "logic and morality be damned, we need government for the benefits it provides". Every immoral act promises a benefit - that's why people act immorally. The rapist gets sex without having to court or otherwise persuade the target individual. The mugger gets quick cash without having to provide any meaningful contribution to society via labor. I simply cannot believe that you're content to lie in bed with such dogs.

Nope, that is NOT my argument at all.

Your entire post went off into a place that was unnecessary.

You are preaching to the choir.

What I am saying is that the majority of humanity is far too lazy to take agency for their freedom, no man is an island.

In my study of primatology, my belief that humans do not infinite natural rights with out regard to the responsibilities to the families and communities that raised became evident. Even the beta chimp or gorilla that loses a fight to the alpha, still stays in the tribe and doesn't stalk off to leave the group for a reason, he still obeys the mores and social protocols of the group.

I, like you, would like to believe that there will be a time when the sum total of humanity would rise above the need for government. That time will not come until it rises above the need for shiny things and material hordes of wealth and power as a substitute for self worth. Man is a poltical animal, denying this does us no useful good. He is an economic one as well. Denying this does us no useful good either.

Until we look these truths square in the eye, making progress on this issue will be difficult. Would you give up your PC and your devices to make sure the person starving next door had a meal to eat for just one week? What if you knew it was they had a drinking and a drug problem? These are real questions with no obvious answers, talking about black and white morality and immorality is easy in the abstract. . . .

So you are charging at windmills like the man from la Mancha if all you do is talk about philosophical ideals, for I will forever be in agreement with you.

When the rubber meets the road, real people only care about our inherent nature and practical solutions, that is what we discuss here.



Oh, and just an aside, although that Fromm character makes some cogent points, be very guarded against Critical Theory, it is a pretty corrosive force in our society.

Ok, I listened to the Stefan video. I'm guessing here, but I assume that you want to explore the distinction between philosophy and practicality.

First of all, I deny a the distinction outright. Philosophy concerns itself with establishing core principles, rooted in truth, as a basis for sound judgment ("the love of wisdom", whereby wisdom is valid knowledge practically applied). The distinction is an illusion, typically cited to justify denying the sound principles of philosophy in practical applications.

Secondly, I also deny the necessity (and even the prudence) of the anarchist offering alternative solutions to justify his argument against external control (i.e. slavery). It's a speculative distraction from the core issue. The anarchist stands in opposition of enforced centralized solutions, so to ask him to suggest them is irrational; and if you're not asking for enforced centralized solutions, then what difference does it make what solutions he proposes? People in an anarchist society are free to ignore him anyway.

It's not the anarchist's responsibility to demonstrate to anyone how anarchy would "work". Each is equally capable of suggesting moral solutions, so the questioner is welcome to try his hand at this himself. In defending myself against robbery, The robbery victim is under no obligation to explain to the robber how he may otherwise make a living. The abolitionist is under no obligation to explain how cotton will be picked in the absence of slaves. The objection is to the immoral act itself, and this need not be justified by offering alternatives.

Either logic holds or it does not. Morality is sound practice, or it is not. If you accept both logic and morality as having merit, then the case against governmental authority is quickly closed. If you do not accept their merit, then your position asserts that illogical immorality is sometimes preferable - can this ever truly be the case? The fact that you do not have assurances once the illogical, immoral non-solution has been removed is wholly irrelevant. I'm sorry, but I make no allowance for the robber to find a job before refraining from robbing me. He must stop now. After that, if he wants to discuss his moral options, I'm willing to do so.

Come to me as a committed, principled anarchist, and we can discuss solutions all day long. But until the logical and moral necessity of the anarchist position is understood and adopted, it would be counter-productive to win people over with practical solutions. An anarchist who simply believes anarchy is "more practical" can be swayed a moment later by a cunning tyrant who is more persuasive.

 

[MisterBeale]

Your argument is essentially "logic and morality be damned, we need government for the benefits it provides". Every immoral act promises a benefit - that's why people act immorally. The rapist gets sex without having to court or otherwise persuade the target individual. The mugger gets quick cash without having to provide any meaningful contribution to society via labor. I simply cannot believe that you're content to lie in bed with such dogs.

Nope, that is NOT my argument at all.

Your entire post went off into a place that was unnecessary.

You are preaching to the choir.

What I am saying is that the majority of humanity is far too lazy to take agency for their freedom, no man is an island.

In my study of primatology, my belief that humans do not infinite natural rights with out regard to the responsibilities to the families and communities that raised became evident. Even the beta chimp or gorilla that loses a fight to the alpha, still stays in the tribe and doesn't stalk off to leave the group for a reason, he still obeys the mores and social protocols of the group.

I, like you, would like to believe that there will be a time when the sum total of humanity would rise above the need for government. That time will not come until it rises above the need for shiny things and material hordes of wealth and power as a substitute for self worth. Man is a poltical animal, denying this does us no useful good. He is an economic one as well. Denying this does us no useful good either.

Until we look these truths square in the eye, making progress on this issue will be difficult. Would you give up your PC and your devices to make sure the person starving next door had a meal to eat for just one week? What if you knew it was they had a drinking and a drug problem? These are real questions with no obvious answers, talking about black and white morality and immorality is easy in the abstract. . . .

So you are charging at windmills like the man from la Mancha if all you do is talk about philosophical ideals, for I will forever be in agreement with you.

When the rubber meets the road, real people only care about our inherent nature and practical solutions, that is what we discuss here.



Oh, and just an aside, although that Fromm character makes some cogent points, be very guarded against Critical Theory, it is a pretty corrosive force in our society.

Thank you for the warning against this crafty Fromm!

I know you are liberty-minded, and this is a discussion between friends, but I don’t see how your support of any government on the basis of “need” places you outside the description in my previous post. The “necessary evil” is still evil, and to condone it for any reason is to feed into the immorality cited as the necessity. It is to hold a position that dooms mankind to eternal domination because you are waiting for others to be moral first, and they are waiting for you.

Do you see the necessity of being the change we want to see? There is no justifiable reason to wait, as the waiting itself is the only delay. You have no power to force another’s hand, but you have authority over yourself. Someone has to go first; if not one who already firmly understands these principles, than who?

I agree that it will take many raising their consciousness before the transition can be made with lasting effect, so lead by example and help them along as best you can. Your shift will not rob those others of their “necessary evil” before their time. Not until they are ready will the transition come. But you’re ready now, so set off and bid them to come along. A shepherd waiting on sheep will be rooted eternally.

I am not the man I was before coming to this realization. I recognized the invalidity and immorality of external control, turned my back on it in every way I could without martyring myself, and as an unexpected side-effect became more generous, more courageous, more engaged in societal uplift, and more neighborly in general.

We don’t need to hit on every point with people. Coming into alignment with the core principles of natural law is a subscription service that will yield ongoing insight on many fronts. But we cannot ride that ship to greener shores with one foot still on the dock.

I agree with everything you stated, the difference, raise awareness and work within the system to reform and make it better rather than tear it down.

Unless you propose something to replace it with, and THEN lobby for support for that system, you are still wasting your energy, folks will ignore you. Only concrete ideas will ever gain support, philosophical ideas are great on paper, but only practical solutions ever win the day.

But I have never heard you do that.


The thing is, I am aware that no man is an island. My opinions or beliefs are no more important than any others, and all people need to have their voice, even statists. If the majority of the nation are statists, isn't the current system the best system because it represents the most sovereigns?

That is what is moral. Regardless of how ethically repugnant we both find it.

 

[MisterBeale]

Your argument is essentially "logic and morality be damned, we need government for the benefits it provides". Every immoral act promises a benefit - that's why people act immorally. The rapist gets sex without having to court or otherwise persuade the target individual. The mugger gets quick cash without having to provide any meaningful contribution to society via labor. I simply cannot believe that you're content to lie in bed with such dogs.

Nope, that is NOT my argument at all.

Your entire post went off into a place that was unnecessary.

You are preaching to the choir.

What I am saying is that the majority of humanity is far too lazy to take agency for their freedom, no man is an island.

In my study of primatology, my belief that humans do not infinite natural rights with out regard to the responsibilities to the families and communities that raised became evident. Even the beta chimp or gorilla that loses a fight to the alpha, still stays in the tribe and doesn't stalk off to leave the group for a reason, he still obeys the mores and social protocols of the group.

I, like you, would like to believe that there will be a time when the sum total of humanity would rise above the need for government. That time will not come until it rises above the need for shiny things and material hordes of wealth and power as a substitute for self worth. Man is a poltical animal, denying this does us no useful good. He is an economic one as well. Denying this does us no useful good either.

Until we look these truths square in the eye, making progress on this issue will be difficult. Would you give up your PC and your devices to make sure the person starving next door had a meal to eat for just one week? What if you knew it was they had a drinking and a drug problem? These are real questions with no obvious answers, talking about black and white morality and immorality is easy in the abstract. . . .

So you are charging at windmills like the man from la Mancha if all you do is talk about philosophical ideals, for I will forever be in agreement with you.

When the rubber meets the road, real people only care about our inherent nature and practical solutions, that is what we discuss here.



Oh, and just an aside, although that Fromm character makes some cogent points, be very guarded against Critical Theory, it is a pretty corrosive force in our society.

Ok, I listened to the Stefan video. I'm guessing here, but I assume that you want to explore the distinction between philosophy and practicality.

First of all, I deny a the distinction outright. Philosophy concerns itself with establishing core principles, rooted in truth, as a basis for sound judgment ("the love of wisdom", whereby wisdom is valid knowledge practically applied). The distinction is an illusion, typically cited to justify denying the sound principles of philosophy in practical applications.

Secondly, I also deny the necessity (and even the prudence) of the anarchist offering alternative solutions to justify his argument against external control (i.e. slavery). It's a speculative distraction from the core issue. The anarchist stands in opposition of enforced centralized solutions, so to ask him to suggest them is irrational; and if you're not asking for enforced centralized solutions, then what difference does it make what solutions he proposes? People in an anarchist society are free to ignore him anyway.

It's not the anarchist's responsibility to demonstrate to anyone how anarchy would "work". Each is equally capable of suggesting moral solutions, so the questioner is welcome to try his hand at this himself. In defending myself against robbery, The robbery victim is under no obligation to explain to the robber how he may otherwise make a living. The abolitionist is under no obligation to explain how cotton will be picked in the absence of slaves. The objection is to the immoral act itself, and this need not be justified by offering alternatives.

Either logic holds or it does not. Morality is sound practice, or it is not. If you accept both logic and morality as having merit, then the case against governmental authority is quickly closed. If you do not accept their merit, then your position asserts that illogical immorality is sometimes preferable - can this ever truly be the case? The fact that you do not have assurances once the illogical, immoral non-solution has been removed is wholly irrelevant. I'm sorry, but I make no allowance for the robber to find a job before refraining from robbing me. He must stop now. After that, if he wants to discuss his moral options, I'm willing to do so.

Come to me as a committed, principled anarchist, and we can discuss solutions all day long. But until the logical and moral necessity of the anarchist position is understood and adopted, it would be counter-productive to win people over with practical solutions. An anarchist who simply believes anarchy is "more practical" can be swayed a moment later by a cunning tyrant who is more persuasive.

If you deny the distinction outright, all you will ever be doing is what these two characters do, and that is all the influence you will ever have on real people's opinions.

I have much that same problem with both of these fellows channels, though Stephan does some pretty stellar research on debunking some commonly held societal myths about people, places and things. The purpose of showing you this channel was to illustrate the mind numbing dullness, and just sheer academic nature of the topic. It has no application to the real world. With either of these philosophies that these ideologues espouse in their utopian wet dreams, unless everyone on the planet ascribed, it would never work. And, uh, the chances of that happening are slim to none. Any time your philosophy rests on something like, having the human race, "be enlightened," or an uprising in consciousness, or having everyone believe the same thing. . . You are headed for dangerous territory.

That's not my bag man, it is the same game that the OP of this thread is attempting to do, create oneness of thought, group think, it isn't how the creator works.

See Roman Stoicism, or Taoism or Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Most folks don't think it is immoral for parents to be the ones to guide and protect their children, for scientists to tell the public what is in their best interests, for religious leaders to tell their flock the will of god, and thus, for government leaders to plan a national vision. I have said it once, and I will say it again, humans have a biological, an evolutionary drive, to be led. They need a chief, an alpha male, and you are not going to get around this. The hardest thing for the anarchist to get around is the fact that Stockholm Syndrome has it's angry claws in the populace.

It's not the anarchist's responsibility to demonstrate to anyone how anarchy would "work".

Then he will be ignored by everyone.

So what is my solution?

Let us critique the state upon anarchist principles and move to less and less state power. Let us show folks the crimes of the state and the blessings of the creators spontaneous order, eventually folks will come around.

There is no need to tear down the comforts of home. . .

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Your argument is essentially "logic and morality be damned, we need government for the benefits it provides". Every immoral act promises a benefit - that's why people act immorally. The rapist gets sex without having to court or otherwise persuade the target individual. The mugger gets quick cash without having to provide any meaningful contribution to society via labor. I simply cannot believe that you're content to lie in bed with such dogs.

Nope, that is NOT my argument at all.

Your entire post went off into a place that was unnecessary.

You are preaching to the choir.

What I am saying is that the majority of humanity is far too lazy to take agency for their freedom, no man is an island.

In my study of primatology, my belief that humans do not infinite natural rights with out regard to the responsibilities to the families and communities that raised became evident. Even the beta chimp or gorilla that loses a fight to the alpha, still stays in the tribe and doesn't stalk off to leave the group for a reason, he still obeys the mores and social protocols of the group.

I, like you, would like to believe that there will be a time when the sum total of humanity would rise above the need for government. That time will not come until it rises above the need for shiny things and material hordes of wealth and power as a substitute for self worth. Man is a poltical animal, denying this does us no useful good. He is an economic one as well. Denying this does us no useful good either.

Until we look these truths square in the eye, making progress on this issue will be difficult. Would you give up your PC and your devices to make sure the person starving next door had a meal to eat for just one week? What if you knew it was they had a drinking and a drug problem? These are real questions with no obvious answers, talking about black and white morality and immorality is easy in the abstract. . . .

So you are charging at windmills like the man from la Mancha if all you do is talk about philosophical ideals, for I will forever be in agreement with you.

When the rubber meets the road, real people only care about our inherent nature and practical solutions, that is what we discuss here.



Oh, and just an aside, although that Fromm character makes some cogent points, be very guarded against Critical Theory, it is a pretty corrosive force in our society.

Thank you for the warning against this crafty Fromm!

I know you are liberty-minded, and this is a discussion between friends, but I don’t see how your support of any government on the basis of “need” places you outside the description in my previous post. The “necessary evil” is still evil, and to condone it for any reason is to feed into the immorality cited as the necessity. It is to hold a position that dooms mankind to eternal domination because you are waiting for others to be moral first, and they are waiting for you.

Do you see the necessity of being the change we want to see? There is no justifiable reason to wait, as the waiting itself is the only delay. You have no power to force another’s hand, but you have authority over yourself. Someone has to go first; if not one who already firmly understands these principles, than who?

I agree that it will take many raising their consciousness before the transition can be made with lasting effect, so lead by example and help them along as best you can. Your shift will not rob those others of their “necessary evil” before their time. Not until they are ready will the transition come. But you’re ready now, so set off and bid them to come along. A shepherd waiting on sheep will be rooted eternally.

I am not the man I was before coming to this realization. I recognized the invalidity and immorality of external control, turned my back on it in every way I could without martyring myself, and as an unexpected side-effect became more generous, more courageous, more engaged in societal uplift, and more neighborly in general.

We don’t need to hit on every point with people. Coming into alignment with the core principles of natural law is a subscription service that will yield ongoing insight on many fronts. But we cannot ride that ship to greener shores with one foot still on the dock.

I agree with everything you stated, the difference, raise awareness and work within the system to reform and make it better rather than tear it down.

Unless you propose something to replace it with, and THEN lobby for support for that system, you are still wasting your energy, folks will ignore you. Only concrete ideas will ever gain support, philosophical ideas are great on paper, but only practical solutions ever win the day.

But I have never heard you do that.


The thing is, I am aware that no man is an island. My opinions or beliefs are no more important than any others, and all people need to have their voice, even statists. If the majority of the nation are statists, isn't the current system the best system because it represents the most sovereigns?

That is what is moral. Regardless of how ethically repugnant we both find it.

It's uncomfortable for me to be such a hard-ass, especially with you, but I have to challenge the premise that your "opinions or beliefs are no more important than any others, and all people need to have their voice, even statists". We're not both on the same page as to what governmental authority actually is - It's slavery. The statist opinion or belief that it's morally acceptable to subject your fellow man to an external authority under threat of violence is wrong (both immoral and incorrect); it's not equally valid or important as the pro-freedom position, which is an acknowledgement of the reality of man's inherent autonomy. Unless you mean "important" in a more nuanced sense (e.g. "influential"), then I vehemently deny this perspective.

If the majority of the nation is wrong, then the current system is definitively not the best system, precisely because they're represented. Consensus does alter morality. Unless, of course you subscribe to the utilitarian view, in which case gang rape is moral, since it provides the most good to the greatest number. And really, even though they want a state, a state does not actually provide them with "good", since their inherent freedom is also denied. So if we're viewing this with clarity, even by utilitarian standards, it's a no-go.

Now, in practical terms, you're absolutely right that my approach is not seemingly most effective, because it does not convert as many people to anarchy as would presenting viable alternatives. But I explained in my other post why, in reality, it actually is most effective; namely because the few converts it does create have a thorough understanding of the principles at the heart of the position, and are henceforth invulnerable to trickery via crafty presentations of authoritarian alternatives.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Your argument is essentially "logic and morality be damned, we need government for the benefits it provides". Every immoral act promises a benefit - that's why people act immorally. The rapist gets sex without having to court or otherwise persuade the target individual. The mugger gets quick cash without having to provide any meaningful contribution to society via labor. I simply cannot believe that you're content to lie in bed with such dogs.

Nope, that is NOT my argument at all.

Your entire post went off into a place that was unnecessary.

You are preaching to the choir.

What I am saying is that the majority of humanity is far too lazy to take agency for their freedom, no man is an island.

In my study of primatology, my belief that humans do not infinite natural rights with out regard to the responsibilities to the families and communities that raised became evident. Even the beta chimp or gorilla that loses a fight to the alpha, still stays in the tribe and doesn't stalk off to leave the group for a reason, he still obeys the mores and social protocols of the group.

I, like you, would like to believe that there will be a time when the sum total of humanity would rise above the need for government. That time will not come until it rises above the need for shiny things and material hordes of wealth and power as a substitute for self worth. Man is a poltical animal, denying this does us no useful good. He is an economic one as well. Denying this does us no useful good either.

Until we look these truths square in the eye, making progress on this issue will be difficult. Would you give up your PC and your devices to make sure the person starving next door had a meal to eat for just one week? What if you knew it was they had a drinking and a drug problem? These are real questions with no obvious answers, talking about black and white morality and immorality is easy in the abstract. . . .

So you are charging at windmills like the man from la Mancha if all you do is talk about philosophical ideals, for I will forever be in agreement with you.

When the rubber meets the road, real people only care about our inherent nature and practical solutions, that is what we discuss here.



Oh, and just an aside, although that Fromm character makes some cogent points, be very guarded against Critical Theory, it is a pretty corrosive force in our society.

Ok, I listened to the Stefan video. I'm guessing here, but I assume that you want to explore the distinction between philosophy and practicality.

First of all, I deny a the distinction outright. Philosophy concerns itself with establishing core principles, rooted in truth, as a basis for sound judgment ("the love of wisdom", whereby wisdom is valid knowledge practically applied). The distinction is an illusion, typically cited to justify denying the sound principles of philosophy in practical applications.

Secondly, I also deny the necessity (and even the prudence) of the anarchist offering alternative solutions to justify his argument against external control (i.e. slavery). It's a speculative distraction from the core issue. The anarchist stands in opposition of enforced centralized solutions, so to ask him to suggest them is irrational; and if you're not asking for enforced centralized solutions, then what difference does it make what solutions he proposes? People in an anarchist society are free to ignore him anyway.

It's not the anarchist's responsibility to demonstrate to anyone how anarchy would "work". Each is equally capable of suggesting moral solutions, so the questioner is welcome to try his hand at this himself. In defending myself against robbery, The robbery victim is under no obligation to explain to the robber how he may otherwise make a living. The abolitionist is under no obligation to explain how cotton will be picked in the absence of slaves. The objection is to the immoral act itself, and this need not be justified by offering alternatives.

Either logic holds or it does not. Morality is sound practice, or it is not. If you accept both logic and morality as having merit, then the case against governmental authority is quickly closed. If you do not accept their merit, then your position asserts that illogical immorality is sometimes preferable - can this ever truly be the case? The fact that you do not have assurances once the illogical, immoral non-solution has been removed is wholly irrelevant. I'm sorry, but I make no allowance for the robber to find a job before refraining from robbing me. He must stop now. After that, if he wants to discuss his moral options, I'm willing to do so.

Come to me as a committed, principled anarchist, and we can discuss solutions all day long. But until the logical and moral necessity of the anarchist position is understood and adopted, it would be counter-productive to win people over with practical solutions. An anarchist who simply believes anarchy is "more practical" can be swayed a moment later by a cunning tyrant who is more persuasive.

If you deny the distinction outright, all you will ever be doing is what these two characters do, and that is all the influence you will ever have on real people's opinions.

I have much that same problem with both of these fellows channels, though Stephan does some pretty stellar research on debunking some commonly held societal myths about people, places and things. The purpose of showing you this channel was to illustrate the mind numbing dullness, and just sheer academic nature of the topic. It has no application to the real world. With either of these philosophies that these ideologues espouse in their utopian wet dreams, unless everyone on the planet ascribed, it would never work. And, uh, the chances of that happening are slim to none. Any time your philosophy rests on something like, having the human race, "be enlightened," or an uprising in consciousness, or having everyone believe the same thing. . . You are headed for dangerous territory.

That's not my bag man, it is the same game that the OP of this thread is attempting to do, create oneness of thought, group think, it isn't how the creator works.

See Roman Stoicism, or Taoism or Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Most folks don't think it is immoral for parents to be the ones to guide and protect their children, for scientists to tell the public what is in their best interests, for religious leaders to tell their flock the will of god, and thus, for government leaders to plan a national vision. I have said it once, and I will say it again, humans have a biological, an evolutionary drive, to be led. They need a chief, an alpha male, and you are not going to get around this. The hardest thing for the anarchist to get around is the fact that Stockholm Syndrome has it's angry claws in the populace.

It's not the anarchist's responsibility to demonstrate to anyone how anarchy would "work".

Then he will be ignored by everyone.

So what is my solution?

Let us critique the state upon anarchist principles and move to less and less state power. Let us show folks the crimes of the state and the blessings of the creators spontaneous order, eventually folks will come around.

There is no need to tear down the comforts of home. . .

Ok, now, if what you're saying is that minarchy, or Constitutional Libertarianism is a means to an anarchist end, then I can get where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree, because what you're saying is that we should defer promoting true understanding until a time when the public will be more ready for it; and this means holding back true knowledge on the basis of a subjective judgement about their "readiness", which I don't believe we have a right to do. But at least we would have the same ultimate goal in mind.

I would mention, however, the shift I'm promoting would not nearly require all people to have a full understanding at first. Even if we don't hold back the knowledge, many simply won't care enough to receive it. However, their desire to be led can work in our favor if true freedom becomes the trend. From there, a full understanding may yet come, as in the case of African-American slavery. That's why it's critical to get anarchist ideas on the table in political discussions. The more people hear it's logic, the more will come around. After all, "how shall they hear without a preacher?" I came to this understanding because others had the courage to present it, despite the overwhelming odds.

And I do not think outright revolution would have a long-lasting effect (the first one didn't even hold for 15 years), so you and I are generally on the same page; I'm not calling for us to tear down the system immediately. But as in the case of the aforementioned slave trade, I do believe a shift in consciousness can occur, and as new generations are born into that new perspective, it can take root rather immovably. Especially since the only reason why anyone buys into authority now is because of pervasive indoctrination, so once it's gone, it will be very difficult to get a free people, resonating with truth from a higher state of consciousness, to adopt such a ludicrous concept. Just as it would be very difficult to promote African-American slavery in our current environment.

 

[P@triot]

You and I have a lot ideological in commonalities.

I doubt it...as you are on record here cheering for the state to turn on the people. I’m on record cheering for us to restore constitutional government.

 

[P@triot]

Nothing ends in catastrophic failure like idiotic left-wing policy...

Another socialist country in financial peril. Argentine President Mauricio Macri has turned to the International Monetary Fund to seek a $US30 billion line of credit in an effort to avoid another economic collapse like the one that nearly devastated the country in 2001.

Left-wing policy always collapses economies.

ECONOMY: Another socialist country headed for financial ruin, Argentina seeks $30B bailout from IMF

 

[P@triot]

You don’t think that politicians purposefully use fear to garner more control?

The left does. Absolutely.

War on drugs? Patriot Act? Just honest efforts to protect the people, then?

Here’s the problem with your conspiracy theory, tinfoil: the Patriot Act was driven by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Both of which knew they had a very limited amount of time in power. Why in the hell would they intentionally drive something like that for power when they knew they wouldn’t be in power much longer and that it could be used against them when they returned to standard U.S. citizens.

The Patriot Act was not the result of some maniacal thirst for power. It was the result of astounding ignorance.

 

[P@triot]

Nothing ends in catastrophic failure like idiotic left-wing policy...

The nation's most troublesome and dangerous cities have been run by Democrats, often black Democrats, for nearly a half-century. It's Democrat-run cities where blacks suffer the highest murder rates and their youngsters attend the poorest-performing and most unsafe schools.

Left-wing policy always ends in poverty.

Kanye West Threatens the Democratic Party's Hold on Black Americans

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Nothing ends in catastrophic failure like idiotic left-wing policy...

The nation's most troublesome and dangerous cities have been run by Democrats, often black Democrats, for nearly a half-century. It's Democrat-run cities where blacks suffer the highest murder rates and their youngsters attend the poorest-performing and most unsafe schools.

Left-wing policy always ends in poverty.

Kanye West Threatens the Democratic Party's Hold on Black Americans

This guy is going to be president one day. Nobody will notice, though, because they’re too busy looking at their phones.

 

[P@triot]

Nothing ends in catastrophic failure like idiotic left-wing policy...

What I found is that widespread adoption of electric vehicles nationwide will likely increase air pollution compared with new internal combustion vehicles. You read that right: more electric cars and trucks will mean more pollution.

The left always causes a problem with their policies, then insists more of their policies are needed to correct the problems they created in the first place. We are literally living Atlas Shrugged.

Are electric cars worse for the environment?

 

[P@triot]

Everywhere you find the left in power and/or in the majority, you find catastrophic failure (poverty, famine, crime, etc.).

In fact - here is the election map of Florida from the 2016 election. The blue sections are Dumbocrat sections. Parkland is in Broward Country (lower right corner of the map). Oh wow, smack dab in the center of a Dumbocrat country (surrounded by two other Dumbocrat counties). How “shocking”.

 

[P@triot]

The progressive narrative is almost as dangerous as progressive policy. They convince their mindless minions that they are “victims” before they even begin living their life.

LISTEN: Rush Limbaugh is left speechless after hearing man’s Obama to Trump prison conversion story