Fuck It! We'll Do It Live! Ep. 1
by Ethan Glover, Mon, Dec 07, 2015 - (Edited) Sun, Sep 10, 2017
Download (Right-Click > Save-As)
This show was preceded by "A Sit Down Discussion on Activism."
This first episode of 'Fuck It! We'll Do it Live! was attended by Rich Paul, Melanie Johnson, Ethan Glover, Michael O'Day, Matthew Roach and Nolan Mann. The idea for this podcast is to take arguments off of Facebook and bring them into the real world. A real, face-to-face discussion contains a very different tone and has a far greater quality than what you will ever find online. This potential continuing series aims to prove that, encourage others to have real world conversation more often, and take on real issues with real differing opinions.
Episode 1 concentrates on a discussion stemming from a comment made by Jeffrey Tucker. He claims it is OK to punch someone who viciously insults your partner. While the NAP may forbid this, sometimes the ethics of reality are not so clear.
- 00:00:35 - It begins. Introductions and things.
- 00:04:11 - Jeffrey Tucker will punch you for viciously insulting his partner.
- 00:05:43 - Jeffrey Tucker is wrong. Mouth noises are just mouth noises. Iniating force makes you 'the state'.
- 00:11:30 - Some duals are beneficial. Some are feeding the trolls.
- 00:12:50 - Is implicit consent still consent in dualing?
- 00:18:18 - Culture and fear dominate the NAP into irrelevancy.
- 00:22:12 - Don't kill chilvary, fight for your woman. ...Or fuck her feelings. Debaters debate.
- 00:25:25 - Ronda Rousey just knocked a guy out and I ain't even mad. Is it OK to root for the violent one? (Also things about property rights.)
- 00:29:00 - Explicit consent to fighting is like explicit consent to sex. Fluidity in law is a requirement in a free society.
- 00:32:05 - 20 minutes later, Rich thinks of an example of implicit consent for fighting.
- 00:34:05 - Determining approriately proportionate responses. Trading blows vs. ending the fight.
- 00:37:17 - Answering a deadly threat with deadly force is OK... unless the threat came over the internet. ...Maybe it's more nuanced than that.
- 00:38:34 - Matt drops the bear mace bomb.
- 00:39:25 - Is it OK to let an insulter in the distance control where you go and what you do? How would you react to these situations as a witness?
- 00:43:00 - Nobody wants to fight. It still happens. Do you deal with that with a universal rule? Or do you allow communities to deal with them dynamically, without restrictions on the parameters of how to do so?
- 00:44:25 - Old guys attacking kids for running remote control car on their golf game. Who's side do you take? Why?
- 00:47:24 - The implications of saying that the interruption of a service is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Determining when that's true, and when it isn't.
- 00:48:17 - Is there a difference between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong? What becomes illegal under anarchist law? How and what happens?
- 00:51:56 - Anarchy = Panarchy. Even if the NAP were a univeral ethic, it would never be universally adopted and codified.
- 00:59:26 - If the NAP can't solve all our problems, can property rights? Does property supersede all wrongs, should it be the end all, be all? Additional conversation on remaining in contact with those who disagree with you.
- 01:05:55 - Fight clubs, fight club laws, and someone says 'death sports'.
- 01:12:51 - Who funds a death sport and how do they get their money? How many people are sociopaths? (Apparently 13%) And will they go away?
- 01:19:05 - Speaking of sociopaths, what do we do with the former government employees in anarchy world?
- 01:22:20 - Maybe sociopaths just need an outlet where they can be controlled and watched while still serving.
- 01:31:15 - Rich says goodbye. "Peace, Pot and Peanut Butter".