Is it necessary for uncaused causes to be possible for libertarian free will to be possible?
Can anyone here present a theory of causation that allows for libertarian free will?

I think actions must be self-caused in order to allow free will. This is where the debate around free will gets murky for me, because it always leads me to think the notion of free will is a 1-to-1 ratio with the body, and it becomes more a problem of identity. if it isn’t me causing my heart to beat, then what is causing my heart to beat? In the sense that my body—me—is regulating every process therein, from the heart beat to the secretion of hormones, it could be said I am controlling, “willing”, each and every action I perform.

You’d have to eschew the presumption of innocence, a precious human right, and adopt the presumption of guilt, a mark of tyranny, for any of that to be the case. There are reasonable doubts in every one of those matters.

Actually it is a truth that many white men are pseudo-Christian Tump supporters who own AR-15s. Most people living in the US know this.

Likewise, there certainly were noble tribes. The tribe that greeted Christopher Columbus welcomed him and his crew only to be later slaughtered or enslaved by Columbus.

First it’s “all white men” are such and such, then it’s “many”. This is the kind of logic required to sell nonsense.

The best you could say is that that particular tribe was hospitable or welcoming, virtues that are not limited to any one religion.

That’s like saying all white men are pseudo-Christian Trump supporters who own AR-15s is a truth.

Yes, the noble savage is stupid for the same reason.

Yawn

The noble (Christian?) savage is a myth.

I live near a tribe that once attacked neighboring tribes so as to make slaves of their women and children.

You know my answer, Tim. No, he is not a murderer. No, he is not a criminal.

I may be too literal, but I am struggling with this too. I guess you mean legal sovereignty over their own body? Only an omni-everything god could have absolute authority over their own body. I can walk around with a sword just lopping off sections of people's bodies. I would end the day dead or in jail, but that doesn't deny the fact that those people had no bodily sovereignty in that example. I also find natural rights to be nonsense (just to give you the freedom to ignore me if you don't want to get into that :smile:)

Just so I can understand the idea, what would be an example of an individual asserting bodily sovereignty? I can think of abortion (and even that asserts one bodily sovereignty at the expense of another), but very little else.

I mean absolute, natural sovereignty. You have no control, authority, or responsibility for my body, my actions, my choices. You cannot make people choose to stand still while being attacked anymore than they can make you choose to attack them.

I have my ups and downs with Sartre, but he did engage with that world.

There certainly are exceptions. But I think better philosophers plant the seeds rather than physically engage with it. Rousseau or Marx for example.

I would think most philosophers would be against activism given the mob mentality it often results in, but they would in their own way oppose ideas and events they disagreed with, perhaps providing fuel for activism.

It doesn't make sense unless you're planning to colonize the area. Just let their protests echo away in silence too (unless you're an American politician and you can get away with a condescending sound bite.

There is no point in protesting an unjust government, then, if no one is watching.

If that were true, there would be no cases of guilt and pardon, and/or guilt and no accountability. There are such cases. Therefore, the belief is false.

If there are such cases, maybe provide an example.

It makes much more sense to stand with those protesting injustice and tyranny, and to let those privileged westerners protesting their feelings echo away in silence.

Nice essay.

But I believe humans lack the capacity to organize any significant conspiracy that wouldn’t result in their jailing or demise. People have consciences, differing wants, motives, and fears, that any cabal is doomed from the outset.

Trump stands with the Iranian people as they protest their government at great risk to their own lives.

The world ignored the murder of 1500 Iranian protesters back in late 2019, many of them becoming de facto supporters of the murderous regime during the recent conflict, because to do otherwise would be to stand with their mortal enemy.

You may be exaggerating to make a point...but this makes very little sense? So every state in America should seek independence? What about each city within those states? If we continue to follow this logic, every human would end up being their own state (or dead)? "Always" is always problematic, hehe.

I was speaking more in terms of national sovereignty, not so much state or municipal sovereignty. But I think some of the same principles might apply to those kinds of territories and polities. I fully believe in individual sovereignty insofar as one should have sovereignty over his own body.

Heightening tensions is one thing, shooting down civilian aircraft is quite another. Iranians have directly killed more Iranians during this period.

The trouble with Brexit bias, many of us don't know if it is right, or wrong. Was it the right thing to do, is it better for our country, is the EU going to collapse in debt, or are we. When one is so uncertain to then have xenophobic populism etc shoved down your throat doesn't feel right either way.

Well unless you're certain it was the right thing to do, in which case everything is rosy. But that can be nothing more than a wing and a prayer, because no one really knows if it was the right thing to do and if they think it was they are being deceitful in some way.

Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do. The EU is more a centralized technocracy which itself deals only with political elites. There is no popular vote, no democracy. I think the instinct for democratic choice and the entrenched reliance on common law procedures has led to a deep suspicion of the European ideal.

I suspect much of that is the same with the election of Trump. On the one hand he is flippant of the technocrats, while on the other swayed by the people and popular opinion. I think in both cases many people wanted to regain a sense of lost and stolen power, as they watch more and more of it being allocated in the hands of bureaucrats and elites.

Iran finally admits it shot down the jet. Incompetence.

I think you’re right, but as far as I can tell the video shows the projectile hurtling towards the plane, which continued to fly after being struck.

This video shows what appears to be a missile hitting the plane.

Imagine if they had nuclear weapons.

I suspect they’d blow themselves up.

Question: why do we talk about Trump, but not Putin's persecution of homosexuals or Chinese concentration camps?

I have always said it’s a matter of privilege. Many westerners are so far removed from tyranny and injustice that only Trump’s bad words are able to penetrate the solipsistic cocoons in which they’ve shielded themselves.

Not only that but I suspect that talking about Trump in a certain way allows the morally bankrupt to appear moral. Think of someone like Harvey Weinstein marching in those anti-Trump women’s marches in 2017. It’s virtue signalling.

So it looks (with the airplane accident). It happens with GBAD (ground based air defence) when it's put to highest alert. They start shooting everything moving in the air and identify targets later.

Similar thing happened with the downing of MH-17. Or earlier with the downing of Iran Air 655 by USS Vincennes (which mistook a civil passenger aircraft for an Iranian F-14).

What is now interesting to see how Iran handles the incident and of course we have to look what the investigation turns out. If it was an accidental downing, Iran can opt either to take the line that President Reagan did with Iran Air 655 and deeply regret the accident OR (which is more likely) take the "asshole-approach" that the Russians did with MH-17 and deny, deny and deny and then blame it on your opponent and not care about overwhelming evidence on the contrary.

If Iran doesn’t hand over the black boxes or let Canada investigate the crash perhaps it will show the world that, no, Iran does not want to play nice with the international community. Anyways it will be interesting.

It looks like evidence is pointing to Iran shooting down a Ukrainian aircraft filled with Iranian, Canadian and Ukrainian civilians. Not a good look, especially after the annihilation of Soleimani, the deaths of funeral-goers, and the bombing of Iraq. Iran is incompetent.

He backed out of a horrible deal with Iran because it lifted important sanctions and allowed them to continue their ballistic missile program, which was ultimately used to fire on Iraq just days ago. It never barred Iranian aggression in the Middle East and had the “sunset provisions”, which Pompeo contends will lead to a frightening nuclear arms race in the Middle East when those provisions run out,

Despite the JCPOA, Iran has acquired the largest and most diverse missile force in the Middle East. So since backing out of the deal Trump has been trying to pressure Iran into negotiations (or its own collapse) by reimposing those sanctions.



If they don’t negotiate then sanctions will not be lifted and they will descend further into economic and societal collapse. I suspect his is what Pompeo wants given the demands of the administration’s new strategy in Iran.

It was a misstep to sign the JCPOA because it never barred ballistic missile proliferation and Iranian aggression in the Middle East, which led us to this little flare up.

Remember when you shared this video in the hopes that it would capture his stupidity?



It turns out he was more spot on than you.. He never wanted a war with Iran, and in fact wants to negotiate a better nuclear deal. Iran’s influence in Iraq dangerously grows, just like he predicted. He is indeed more militaristic, showing military strength at key moments, like he did with Soleimani. He supports their protesters, like he said Obama could have done. Iran’s problem’s with protesters is so bad their extrajudicial killings of their own people has fomented inner struggle. Other possibilities besides war should be exhausted, which they were.

The only thing he was wrong about was Obama wanted to start a war with Iran to win the election, which are not unlike the anti-Trump conspiracy theories regarding Trump.

I’m pretty sure Israel is a parliamentary democracy.

I doubt they will get a tighter deal, by that time Iran will be proped up by Russia, so they won't play ball. Trump has scuppered the only chance there was to prevent Iran getting a bomb.

Russia will see the opportunity to close a noose around the Middle East.

I doubt the entirety of your theorizing, but who knows?

Perhaps you’re right. I think the only difference between the two is that Iran has explicitly stated its goal is to destroy Israel.

Obama’s deal didn’t go far enough. The Iranians were allowed to speed up their ballistic missile program while co-signatories could only stand around and watch.

Are you going to answer the question about Iran becoming nuclear?

I believe Iran already has nuclear power. As for nuclear weapons, Trump just suggested a new deal, calling on the E3, China, NATO, Russia to help.

How is the US going to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power?

Not nuclear power. Nuclear weapons.

He's chosen the weak dick moment. Probably he was given little choice by those who know better.

So weak dick that he blew up the Ayatollahs right-hand man.

Trump’s measured response, which included inviting Iran into the civilized world, was in line with Trump’s policy and past statements, directly contradicting the breathless fear-mongering of those fearing war.

It’s happening.

Iran launched more than a dozen missiles at two Iraqi bases that hold US troops in what appears to be retaliation for the American airstrike that killed a top Iranian general last week, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

A US official told CNN that there were no initial reports of any US casualties, but an assessment is underway. There are casualties among the Iraqis at Ain al-Asad airbase following the attack, an Iraqi security source tells CNN. The number of casualties and whether the individuals were killed or wounded was not immediately clear.

White House aides are making plans for a possible address to the nation by President Donald Trump, according to two officials.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html

Expect Trump to address the nation.

I think Europe in general has lost the capacity for self-determination. I don't think Boris can alter that.

I think if they detach themselves from Brussels they might not have the choice to do otherwise, a sink or swim kind of moment.

Not at all - I'm not suggesting he's low IQ. Rather, he has the sort of superficial knowledge of the world that pundits possess (like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin), and that point of view has a big audience. The stupidity lies in thinking there's no need for more in depth analysis and knowledge, and thinking you know better than everyone else...and in exercising an extreme amount of confirmation bias, so that he accepts any conspiracy theory that comes along that confirms his prior beliefs, and his unwillingness to accept expert advice that is contrary to his ignorant gut feel.

His gut feelings have done a better job than any sober, technocratic deliberation. They think and claim to know better but I don’t think that’s the case. All the over-educated, effete people know how to do is talk, talk, talk. What have they built? What have they made? What else have they done?

I respect the opinion of authorities, and it is irrational to deny them solely because you don't like their conclusions. Authorities can be wrong - obviously they aren't always in agreement, but accepting a non-authority demagogue(especially one that so frequently spouts untruths) over an actual authority based solely on faith in the demagogue - that's scary. And that gets back to why it matters what Trump says: there's no good reason to trust either his judgment nor what he says.

Name one prediction regarding Trump’s presidency that an “authority” has gotten correct, because I don’t think they have any authority anymore, and perhaps never did. People who can spout off facts prove only that they know how to recite facts, but not much else. Follow them if you wish, but I would much rather follow someone with the experience of life, not the experience of a library.

There is no war, but if there is, we’ll be important allies as we always have. It’s far better than appeasing a terrorist state with money and grovelling. Hopefully Boris will bring a spine back to what was once a powerful nation.

What you do is to respond perceived partisan comments with your own partisan comments. It's a waste of time. I try to avoid that sort of thing. For instance, my view on Trump's stupidity is based on examining facts.

I suppose he just bungled his way into the most powerful position in the world. Meanwhile all your smooth-talking, private/public view lawyers are dropping like flies.

You're deflecting from the point I made, just like all loyal partisans. This isn't a matter of merely "not liking" what he says, it's a matter of being alarmed at how stupid he must be to say them, and how stupid and/or blindly loyal his followers are for not seeing this.

So what? Your obsequiousness to intellectuals and smooth talkers alarms me.

Now you can be sure. — Wallows

Iran said on Saturday it was now capable of raising uranium enrichment past the 20% level and had launched advanced centrifuge machines in further breaches of commitments to limit its nuclear activity under a 2015 deal with world powers.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/iran-further-breaches-nuclear-deal-says-it-can-exceed-20-enrichment-idUSKCN1VS05B

IAEA confirms Tehran's announcement last week that it began refining uranium, while EU considers reimposing sanctions.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/iran-breaches-nuclear-deal-enrichment-push-watchdog-191111183454063.html

They’ve been consistently breaching the deal.

Then why make the following post:

Because it is true.

You're playing exactly the same partisan game as the people you criticize.

I haven’t criticized anyone for being partisan.

Unlike you, I think what are leaders say does matter. My primary issue with Trump is not "thought crimes" - it's that he's arrogant and stupid. This is regularly shown in his tweets, rally-streams of consciousness, and his Fox interviews. IMO, anyone who doesn't see this is either blinded by faith in Trump or they are are even dumber than he is.

You don’t like the way he talks. I get it. But if a good talker is your standard for good leadership than any actor who can read a script will suffice as your ideal politician. That frightens me because talking good is all some people can do.