Profile

Cover photo
Manu “मनु” Forster
1,155 followers|579,315 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
THe Limit! :)
1
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
24:25 "Anarchists believe that it is legitimate and just to restrict #freedom if [the] freedom [in question] would destroy the very freedom from which freedom itself arises..." +anarchopac 
This is what I see very critical, even though I seem to understand the basic ethical insight underlying this idea. 

However...
I don't even think we have to restrict freedom(s), to preserve our (essential) freedom.
That even sounds contradictory. I mean: There will always be conflicts and people will simply defend their freedom in acts of self-defense, if they are being threatened by aggressive, destructive and obtrusive behavior.  But if we build up structures for authoritarian intervention, that would serve as "Guardians of Freedom", then such structures of control and intervention would (for quite obvious reasons) pose the greatest threat to freedom, anyway. 
I think that we can (and we should) avoid the risk of losing our essential social and individual freedom. 
In order to provide a stable foundation for the optimal preservation of social and individual freedom, we basically only have to enable people to act consistently upon free will, that is: according to their own ethical and moral insights. 

We have to ask the question: 
Under what kind of circumstances are our social and individual freedoms actually threatened? 

I think that a constant threat for freedom is a lack of choice, that will always come up when people are somehow exposed to natural adversities, social conflicts, isolation or systemic structural pressures... What we always have to avoid are relationships of heteronomy or situations of dependency that may require subordination to the will of others... and the exposure to adverse circumstances which lead people to frustration and despair... 
So, to preserve true and honest social and individual freedom, we have to create a constantly high level of "social awareness"... that means we should always communicate openly, respectfully and honestly... we should clearly convey our basic motives, our wishes and desires/ what we want or what we don't want. 

Essentially open communication/ transparent interaction, respect and solidarity could be understood as a simple and basic formula for social horizons, based on the idea of "free will"/ "Voluntarism" and "Anarchy". 

If we consistently stick to these principles, we may never even experience the need to restrict freedoms in order to preserve freedoms. 

Anyone who stubbornly acts in discord to these principles of free and open interaction will have to face public embarrassment. But as long as the principles of openness, respect and solidarity prevail, even outsiders, critics and people who refuse to conform to these basic ideals will always be accepted and supported. Every one who experiences frustration and rejection can become a threat for peace and freedom. 

Therefore we are (indeed) responsible for the preservation of social and individual freedom in our everyday behavior. 
The more we stick to our ideals and principles, the better we can provide a stable foundation for a free and open society. 

This is basically also, why I think that Anarcho-Capitalism cannot work: 
The whole idea of economic power and economic compensation is far too restrictive, too coercive and leads to a constant climate of social distress, conflict, rivalry, delimitation and frustration. 
As market participants we're constantly confronted with a dilemma of motivation:
Far too often, do we have to compromise between our ethical insights and our interests as market participants competing for profit. Furthermore, market and trade advantages are mostly based on asymmetries of information, which is why we always find reasons to avoid open communication and transparency, in market relationships. 
The whole market exchange system is actually a framework of economic control and manipulation/ of implied moral condemnation/ of retribution and revenge. We don't need this. It complicates our coexistence and our interaction.
And this is why we have to get rid of this sad paradigm of rivalry and delimitation.

The threat of losing our freedom is far less immanent, if people's minds and hearts are free from structural pressures and incentives provided by a system of economic compensation and justification. 

To dissolve structures of economical interest and market power, we of course need to offer support to one another, without asking for a reward or payment. But I'm quite confident that we can learn to shift our social paradigm. 
We can learn to interact freely, to support one another in openness, respect and solidarity. 
The "social web" can help a lot in this cultural transformation process! 

We have to break the spell of venality and will corruption, by offering options for a life beyond market interests, that is worthwhile living.
We are already on our way in creating a culture of openness, transparency, mutual aid and voluntary contribution.  
Let's move on! ;)
1
Add a comment...
 
This was quite a fair discussion. +anarchopac , +Stefan Molyneux ...

And it's truly not easy to draw a clear line in between decisions that we meet in "self-interest" or decisions that we meet for some kind of "altruistic motives". But there seems to be an area of wise choices that we can decide to act upon, where "self-interest" actually meets "altruism". 

Still we could argue whether or not we have the freedom to consistently act upon an optimal ethical standard in a social framework of market exchange relationships. 
I think this is where +Stefan Molyneux' philosophy is flawed, because he seems to ignore structural pressures and will corrupting incentives within the system of economic control and manipulation that he promotes as optimal for human interaction in "free/ voluntary agreements". 
The market paradigm sets clear and obvious restrictions and incentives that often tend to distract people from wanting to do the right thing. The integrity of our motives is constantly put in question, due to market incentives/ profit interests and structural pressures within the "totality of market exchange relationships" that we currently find ourselves in.

I would make the claim that we'd see much more people act consistently with their moral and ethical insights as social human beings if we would manage to break the spell of economic pressures and incentives. 
We would have much more freedom to decide to take actions that could be described as "Universally Preferable Behavior", if we weren't distracted from our social motives by arbitrary economic interests and considerations. 
If we want to see people make less corrupt choices, we should remove the conditions that push people into ethically questionable options. I see the market exchange paradigm as fatally problematic in regard to ethical integrity as well as freedom of will. Our conditioning to some sort of presupposition of an extrinsic motivating economic stimulus has a deeply corrupting influence on human behavior. We should be willing to let go of will corrupting and manipulative rituals of economic compensation. If we need to justify claims for support in front of each other, we could surely find more appropriate ways of justification than monetary payments or economic rewards. 

The cybernetic Heinz von Foerster formulated his "Ethical Imperative" like this: 

"I shall act always so as to increase the total number of choices"
Heinz von Foerster (1984)
1
Manu “मनु” Forster's profile photo
 
I posted this via +YouTube, but the link is missing... strange... something went wrong. 
Add a comment...
 
"... just give him the car!.. Give people what they need and You'll begin to see that needs and wants start to divide..."
1
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
At first glance I've been totally appalled by his obtrusive narcissist appearance. 
Then I thought... well alright... at least he's discussing his opinions and ideas openly and that's fine... that's a good thing, as long as he remains fair and open minded.
But this statement is really kind of weird... And it is indeed quite shocking that he gets this much attention on the web for zealously preaching his superficial (and quite obviously inconsistent) Free-Market/ Voluntarist ideology. 

I still think it's a great project. Although I can't agree with his core philosophy, at least he promotes basic values.that we share...
+Stefan Molyneux brings all the superficial and paradoxical Anarcho-Capitalist ideas to light. I only worry that he might cling to hard to these ideas... It's an intellectual journey of a guy who learned to play with money more or less successfully. He promotes a simplistic world-view with an easily accessible good & evil dichotomy: The bogeyman is  "The State" and "The State" has nothing to do with our culture of economic rivalry and delimitation.
... Let's see where this goes... the web is an eduction project... we can all learn something here... (Stefan included...)
1
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
"Der passive #Mensch, der fühlt, dass er wenig ist [...] aber wenn er viel hat und viel benützt vergessen kann, dass er wenig ist." // #Erich #Fromm
 ·  Translate
1
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
This is really awesome! 
I've been listening to a lot of Your courses already. 
Hard to find such a great/ wide spanning and well processed overview of comparative religion! 
Thanks a lot for this upload... +khanpadawan ! 
1
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
This was quite a fair discussion. +anarchopac , +Stefan Molyneux ...
And it's truly not easy to draw a clear line in between decisions that we meet in "self-interest" or decisions that we meet for some kind of "altruistic motives". But there seems to be an area of wise choices that we can decide to act upon, where "self-interest" actually meets "altruism". 

Still we could argue whether or not we have the freedom to consistently act upon an optimal ethical standard in a social framework of market exchange relationships. 
I think, this is where Stefan Molyneux' philosophy is flawed, because he seems to ignore structural pressures and will corrupting incentives within the system of economic control and manipulation that he promotes as optimal for human interaction in "free/ voluntary agreements". 
The market paradigm sets clear and obvious restrictions to our freedom of choice and proposes incentives that often tend to distract people from wanting to do the right thing. The (moral or ethical) #integrity of our motives is constantly put in question, due to market incentives/ profit interests and structural pressures within the "totality of #market #exchange relationships" that we currently find ourselves in.

I would make the claim that we could see much more people act consistently with their moral and ethical insights as social human beings if we would manage to break the spell of economic pressures and incentives
We would have much more freedom to decide to take actions that could be described as "Universally Preferable Behavior", if we weren't distracted from our social motives by arbitrary economic interests and considerations. 
If we want to see people make less corrupt choices, we should remove the conditions that push people into ethically questionable options. I see the market exchange paradigm as fatally problematic in regard to ethical integrity as well as freedom of will. Our conditioning to some sort of presupposition of an extrinsic motivating economic stimulus has a deeply corrupting influence on human behavior. We should be willing to let go of will corrupting and manipulative rituals of economic compensation. If we need to justify claims for support in front of each other, we could surely find more appropriate ways of justification than monetary payments or economic rewards. 

The cybernetic Heinz von Foerster formulated his "Ethical Imperative" like this: 

"I shall act always so as to increase the total number of choices"
Heinz von Foerster (1984)
1
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
This concept of Self-Ownership has been made up to justify beliefs, rituals and cultural traditions of #market   #exchange
The paradigm of economic rivalry and delimitation leads to obviously manipulative relationships and implicitly coercive social structures. From early childhood on, we learn to submit to a game of (rather blind and manipulative) rituals to justify our claims for support and partaking to each other. Even if we could point out that we are (in some way or aspect) "legal owners" of ourselves, I don't think we have to promote a philosophy based on economic control and manipulation. Much less if we want to promote basic ideas like interaction according to "freedom of will".  

I was surprised to see +Stefan Molyneux say (in a recent video) that he doesn't like "rights". 
--> https://plus.google.com/u/0/115680572119865888041/posts/CLv9MKuVoiF 

How can we imagine market exchange without "rights"? 

After all, the rituals of buying and selling are only about the negotiation of #rights . 
1
sote's profile photoManu “मनु” Forster's profile photo
2 comments
 
And not even the act of self-defense has to be understood as a legal concept... 
Self-defense is quite a natural consequence... If we choose to attack somebody, this is basically what we have to expect...
That people will resist our attack.  
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
#melodrama  ! --> 15:21 This is the creepiest monologue by +Stefan Molyneux that I've seen, so far.
1
Manu “मनु” Forster's profile photosote's profile photo
3 comments
sote
 
Sehe ich ähnlich. Verkürzt: Unser Geld als Anreizsystem produziert zuverlässig, mit mathematischer Präzision, die Verwerfungen die wir sehen (Ungleich verteilter Wohlstand, Überfluss hier/Mangel da, extreme Machtkonzentrationen).
In diesem den Antiadorno Es gibt kein richtiges Leben im Falschen) machen zu wollen, muss scheitern. Der Kapitalismus adaptiert Alles. Sogar die Kritik an ihm; einige der Kritiker sind mit ihrer Kritik reich geworden.
Die Vernunft böte einen Ausweg, nämlich die Änderung dieses Anreizsystems, dahingehend, dass die beobachtbaren Folgen ausgeschlossen werden.
Aus dieser Perspektive benötigte zumindest ich auch keine Schuldigen einerseits und das Gerede über Wir müssen bessere Menschen werden, das Moralisieren, könnte aufhören - derzeit verkauft sich ja auch das gut.
Was unseren Freund Stefan hier angeht, halte ich die voluntaristische Perspektive für ausgesprochen hilfreich in zweierlei Hinsicht. Zum einen macht sie die Gitterstäbe unserer Denk- und damit Lebensgefängnisse, inklusive der Kette an der wir uns freiwillig am Nasenring durch die Manege des Lebens ziehen lassen sichtbar und zum anderen zeigt sie, richtig gedreht, wie grotesk die Diskrepanz zwischen ökonomischem und sozialem Handeln ist; letzteres beruht ja hauptsächlich auf Freiwilligkeit.
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
"I don't like rights..." +Stefan Molyneux 
I completely agree -- #rights require functional structures of authoritarian intervention that can easily be abused for coercive strategies of exploitation and oppression. That's why I'd prefer to live in a society where people learn to get along beyond claiming "rights". A society based on the idea of open communication, respect and solidarity.

It's surprising and funny that You, +Stefan Molyneux -- as an eager activist for Free-Market #Capitalism philosophy -- claim to dislike rights. 

Have You ever wondered what we are negotiating in market trade situations?

In fact the whole game of markets is only about the negotiation of rights.

You can't buy or sell anything but a right.

Buying and selling is only about the negotiation of rights for access, use, control and ownership.

You are mentioning the (incredibly silly and ideologically biased) idea of "Self-Ownership". 
That would be something that we could refer to as a "Natural Right" -- which is indeed an idea with religious implications, like "God-Given Rights". 

"Ownership" is a legal title, which is normally acquired by buying "Property Rights" to a certain resource or infrastructure. --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_%28economics%29 

Whatever we negotiate on the market is meaningless without "rights" and "legal security".
The (socially disruptive) idea of market exchange is (therefore) inevitably connected to the idea of "rights". 
That's why we'll never be able to avoid the emergence of structures that promise legal security for market participants, even if we should ever manage to abolish the "state"... (how ? ... politically... by state decree or by force?..) 

Think about it, Stefan... !
This only shows how contradictory Your basic ideas are. 
If You'd like to stick to Your beliefs in "free will" and "voluntarism" -- what I would appreciate -- then You should examine (or explain) how these beliefs go together with Your appraisal of the sad, coercive and restrictive paradigm of market exchange.
1
Add a comment...

Manu “मनु” Forster

commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly  - 
 
I'm not sure what we can know about "God". 
First of all "God" is an idea. 
A heavily influential idea. 
(... perhaps more than one idea.)
We could understand "God" as an idea that we should treat with respect and by all means try to keep "holy"/ or "sacred" in the most honest sense of the word. // See Eliade/ Smart/ Tillich/ Kauffman ::: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKaU3nX04cE 
Silly, naive, implausible, fundamentalist and stubborn dogmatic notions of God are in this sense just as blasphemous as hypocritical ideas or understandings implicating moral/ ethical double standards to the most "sacred" concept that we have. 

The essential question in this silly controversy about the "existence of #God " is always: 
Is there anything in or beyond this universe or beyond that we can refer to as "God"? 
If there is something that we want to decide to associate with the denominator "God", then we have to find out if others agree on our semantic definition or description of "God". 
We may be able to agree someday on something that we can plausibly refer to as "God"... It's essentially a question of cultural, scientifical, philosophical and semantic development. And that "something" that we could perhaps agree to call "God", is perhaps not even a "thing" or some Being entity/ idea or phenomenon beyond a "thing"...

It's funny that +Stefan Molyneux claims that paradoxical things can't exist in principle... 

There's this Theological Argument that discusses the fundamental problem of #philosophy / or #cosmology  that there is actually nothing that exists in this universe that can be explained by "Sufficient Reason" (Leibniz). 
All of our existence is in a sense paradoxical, as long as we are unable to answer the question why there is anything rather than nothing... 

Have a closer look into it: 
>> The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz made a similar argument with his principle of sufficient reason in 1714. "There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition," he wrote, "without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases." He formulated the cosmological argument succinctly: "Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason [...] is found in a substance which [...] is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." << 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Argument_from_contingency 

Here's a famous BBC radio debate with Bertrand Russel and F.C. Copleston : 
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgyWuJFd3ho   


And more: 
--> http://edwardfeser.blogspot.de/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html 
1
Hartmut Noack's profile photo
 
Anything, that is directly evident, does not bear a burden of proof. There is no need to proof, that I sit in a room with 4 walls and that there is a lot of wind outside and heavy rain thrashing against the windows. There is no room for philosophy here.
Even more so anything, that is not directly evident in the same way: there is no point in trying to proof, that something does not exist, when nobody has ever seen or touched it or has measured physical interaction of that thing in any other way.
Besides: it is simply impossible, to prove Gods nonexistence in any universally accepted way such as scientific experiments or the like.

So here philosophy and logic kicks in and can be a s relevant as it can be....

Leibnitz speaks about the people of his time. Individuality as we know it was considered a perverted extremism if it at all emerged. Today is different: I can say, that what you may call a neccessity is to me but an external phenomenon that has no meaning for me expect its evident meaning for you. Because you have a meaning for me and thus your believes are important and relevant to me too etc.

So for me God does only exist as an idea and as a psychological agent with a profound influence for others.
You know, that I consider a physical existing God absurd. Such a being cannot exist in space and time and have the features of God in the same time.
So we could agree, that nevertheless God does exist as an idea. To follow ideas is optional. A wall is not an idea, its physical. I would be ill-advised if I would not take the door when I want to go outside...
Not so ideas: I can sleep sound, love my neighbors, dont fear death etc without taking God as guidance or explanation.
Add a comment...
People
Have them in circles
1,155 people
Olga Baumann's profile photo
Yulia Bond's profile photo
skymile fly's profile photo
Tobias Loitsch's profile photo
Светлана Гронова's profile photo
Сергей Степанов's profile photo
Сергей Тюхин's profile photo
Mustafa Tanyeri's profile photo
Martin Glogger's profile photo
Story
Tagline
"Manus manum lavat." ;)
Apps with Google+ Sign-in