One of the best teachers I ever had was a humanities teacher in high school. She went to every seminar on teaching, developmental psychology, and learning she could find time and money for. Then she would come back and try to put what she learned into practice.
One time she came back and had us all do tests to determine learning style and left/right brain bias. In the theory she learned, there are four styles, learning by reading, hearing a lecture, seeing a demonstration, and doing an activity. This doesn't tend to correlate with gender. As well, some people are more right brained/intuitive, and some are more left brained/logical. This does.
She tried to make time for all learning styles in proportion to how many could learn well in that style. One tool she used was having us all do brain maps rather than take standard notes. She said this engaged more different styles of learning, helping even kinesthetic learners.
Oh sadness. I just went to look up learning styles on wikipedia, and evidently, there is a LOT of criticism of this technique, and no credible evidence it helps kids learn better. Ah well, another cherished childhood memory tarnished.:(
Good point, I was going to mention that. It's actually more complex, people have four different primary learning styles, and most schools only teach to one or two. It isn't just gender.
People can learn through hearing something, reading something, watching something, or doing something. Most schools only teach through lecture and books, with a relatively few demonstrations and lab activities for the other learning styles.
Teachers only have a limited amount of time and attention. It would be nice if we could hire an unlimited amount of good teachers, but we can't. IF teachers were giving unfair amounts of that time and attention to boys, and IF we decide not to spend more money on teachers, then the correct action to take is to increase the amount of time and attention given to girls, at the expense of the boys.
IF this is just dumbing down the curriculum in order to level the playing field, then that would be wrong. But I don't see any evidence that is the case.
I knew that line would get a rise out of someone. A day without making someone uncomfortable is a wasted day in my book. Are you a white male, by chance? Whiner.
If there is unfairness in the way that biology and psychology are taught, and there are ways of teaching those subjects that would be more accessible to boys, then yes, of course I support using those methods. Why would you assume otherwise?
Certainly consciousness and intelligence come with responsibility. But why? I postulate that there is no external scale for anything, that all measurements are made with scales constructed within any given system. There is no good or evil external to the sentient mind. There is also no external scale that says we are better than other animals.
We do need to punish transgressions such as this because it is effective to do so. Some people can only reason based on a primitive and immediate understanding of self interest. They need to understand that they will be punished for things that harm society, because they can't see the larger reasons not to do so.
There is no reason to punish a rat for eating its babies or a lion for killing its food. It won't accomplish anything useful to society. That is the difference between us and animals, not some arbitrary moral rule.
The root of this dilemma boils down to agency and free will. We feel that conscious agents with free will should be held to a different set of standards than processes that do not possess free will. We feel that they COULD have made a different choice, and only by punishment can we induce them to make different choices in the future.
But free will is an illusion. In order for free will to exist, there must be a disjuncture between will and reality. The self, in this theory, is postulated as self-existing, that is, it exists apart from the rest of reality. That is false. Self and reality are like the faces and vases illusion. Look at it one way, you see external reality, look at it another, you see the self, but they are really just two ways of looking at the same thing.
Does this mean agents don't make choices? Of course they do. But this process is an emergent phenomenon and choices are conditioned by experience. We can look at the conditions that lead to a person making a choice that is detrimental to society, and figure out ways to remove those conditions so that in the future, agents do not make those detrimental choices.
Free will contains an inherent paradox. Either will is influenced by 'external' reality or it isn't. If will is separate from reality, and not influenced by it, then the self is incapable of learning. If will is an emergent property of reality, and conditioned by it, it makes no sense to put qualifiers on it and claim, well, in THIS situation, this person could have chosen differently. Either self is entirely conditioned by reality, or it isn't, and if it isn't, then how do we learn from our actions?
I think self itself is an illusion. There is no little man inside my head, looking out through my eyes and listening through my ears. The sense of self is just another sense. It serves to orient the internal mental model of the universe. When a sentient needs to know who these sense impressions and thoughts apply to, the sense of self points to the internal model of the self and says, THAT is who these thoughts and senses apply to.
In a movie, the sounds are actually another track on the film. If you think of our senses as a movie, then the sense of self is just another track on the film, it is not someone watching the film.
How does correcting an unfair imbalance equal hamstringing? More attention was paid to boys, and they did better. Now that teachers are giving more time to girls and teaching in a more gender neutral fashion, the scores are becoming more equal. If I give you something that I don't give to others, and then I take some of that away from you in order to more fairly distribute it, I am not hamstringing you.
Its sad, so many people have gotten used to having unfair advantage, they consider it their birthright. White males tend to be the worst whiners.
Most humans have a natural desire for justice and fairness. This is evolutionarily advantageous, it helps us build functional societies. Punishment is a tool. It is never 'right,' or 'good' to punish, those are moral judgments. Sometimes, it is effective, that is all we need say about it.
This was no more right or wrong than a rat eating its babies, or a lion killing an antelope. Shit happens. We punish transgressions like this not because the act is wrong or bad, but because it is ineffective, it doesn't work for society, and we are programmed to uphold what is right.
All punishment starts from within. It usually starts from a moral judgment or a feeling that something is not right with the universe. But right and wrong don't exist outside the minds of sentient beings.
You know the saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" One will not make moral judgments against another unless one thinks that making moral judgments is a good thing. If you think it is a good thing, you will do it to yourself.
There is no place you can hide from your own judgment. People who make moral judgments are trapped in their own skulls with a monster they can't hide from or defend against. They use their own power against themselves.
This man has no capacity to damage society anymore. There are therefore only two possible reasons to hope for a Hell for him to suffer in. One obviously faulty reason is the hope that his suffering will restore some kind of balance to the universe. But his actions never had the power to put the universe out of moral balance. Nothing does.
The other reason is the hope that his suffering in hell will somehow deter others. Which might be true if there were any kind of proof it was happening, but there isn't.
Wanting to punish this dead man only reinforces the desire to punish in general. It tells the part of our brain that makes judgments and metes out punishment that it is doing the right thing. And some day, all that righteous anger, pain, and humiliation will be directed internally, at the person making the judgment, as soon as they fail to live up to their own internal rulebook.
Don't get me wrong, discernment is a good thing. Knowing what works and what doesn't, and why, is a good thing. And fortunately, doing 'good' does not require moral judgment, only discernment and self interest.
Perhaps the worst thing about moral judgment is that it gets in the way of true discernment. If one thinks that certain things are inherently evil and need to be punished, one will have a hard time honestly recognizing when one is doing those things. I said there was no defense against the monster in our heads, that is not quite true. One can lie to oneself.
But if one refrains from judgment, both internal and external, one can really, honestly look at one's actions, decide which are effective and which ineffective, and reward the effective actions. Reward is the only motivator for new behaviors.
Wow, long rant. And I will admit, forgiveness is hard. It is much easier to give in to the feelings of anger and moral righteousness. I still do much of the time. But I don't judge myself for judging myself.:)
So don't judge this guy. Realize his actions were part of a larger pattern, that they weren't effective, that they did not bring him what he wanted, that they are detrimental to society, and that those sorts of actions should be punished only to help society function better, not because they were evil. He is now beyond the ability to harm society, and beyond our ability to witness his punishment, so all practical reasons to wish for punishment are gone.
What is left is only the mind's desire to judge everything in the universe, and harm that which is judged evil. Acting on that desire is harmful to the self.
It has to be a creative expression. I remember some years ago a printer manufacturer put art on a chip in their cartridges and had the printers check for it. They sued cartridge makers who copied their art. The judge ruled against them, as the art was not considered a creative expression, but a copy protection mechanism. Game boards are usually not considered creative expressions.
You can't copyright a game. Hasbro is suing them over the trademark. Scrabulous should have used a name that doesn't sound like Scrabble, then there would be nothing Hasbro could do. Perhaps Scrabulous could change their name to Crapple.
You can't take it from me now! I've had this ice-cream bar since I was a CHILD! People...always trying to take it from me! Why won't they LEAVE ME ALOOOOOONNNNE?
Are you that dense, or just pretending not to understand the point? Different people have different definitions of win. For instance, if we are playing chess, and I shoot you in the head, have I won? A sociopath might think so, but most people wouldn't.
Similarly, we might have won the war by bombing Japan, but many people still count that as a loss for humanity in general. We might have won a nuclear war against the Soviet Union, but it would have involved general, planet wide devastation, thus putting it in the 'loss' column for most people.
I have to ask, does might always make right in your world view?
I've had good and bad experiences with police. I think cops have two modes, 'serve and protect' mode, and 'kick the shit out of the criminal' mode. You don't want to do anything that puts them in the second mode, which includes mouthing off to them.
When I volunteered with Food Not Bombs, we handed out free soup and bagels in front of city hall in San Francisco. The mayor did NOT like this, so he rounded up the worst cops and set them on us.
I've been beaten down for handing out free food. I've seen cops wrench my friend's arms out of their sockets, stomp on their heads, and drag them off. I've seen them pour soup into the gutter in front of hundreds of hungry people. That's a little hard to forgive.
I don't think all cops are bad. But there are problems with the police. First, who becomes a cop? A few people who really want to do good, a few people who really like power over others, and a bunch of people who just didn't have any better options.
Second, cops see the worst side of life and society, and it makes them callous and jaded. They expect the worst because they've seen it every day. Not enough emphasis is placed on proper psychological counseling for police. They really need it.
Finally, cops protect each other. Which makes sense when you are on the street together facing danger. But they take it too far, and protect each other from consequences of very bad decisions as well. Cops get away with things that they would instantly bust others for.
That being said, outside of protest situations, I've had nothing but good interactions with the police. They've been polite and helpful. But once you start making a fuss, not even busting up property but just protesting, they turn mean. They represent authority, and they will not have authority questioned.
A popular misconception in the 1960s and 1970s that XYY males were more prone to criminal behavior led to several novels and TV series which exploited the idea with little regard to the science.
Please read the pages you quote to see if they actually support your hypothesis.
1.) So they are conservatives, not liberals, but happen to distrust large business, got it.
2.) You don't understand comparative advantage at all. Monopolies must be restricted in any case, they lead to failure of the free market. And of course if everyone is equally as good at everything, there is no competitive advantage, but so what? Everyone is producing at maximum efficiency anyway. Or are you assuming that everyone will be equally bad at everything, and if so, why so negative?
3.) Awful used to mean awesome. Words change. In a political sense, Libertarian means a particular thing, and it always has.
4.) Anarchism is not about total dissolution of all organization. That is simple chaos. Anarchism is not about lack of leaders or structure, it is about not having coercive rulers, either political or economic.
5.) So, you must not support the American Revolution, what with all the nasty violence.
6.) No, there isn't. Rather, I get to decide for myself whether I accept someone's characterization of themselves as anarchist. And you get to decide for yourself.
Most 'quasi-sollipsistic outdoorsmen' I've known tend to be conservatives. But I'll admit that there may be some American left libertarians. I haven't met any, but 'libertarian' is a general term outside the US for any sort of anarchist.
Comparative advantage comes when there is a difference in production cost between exporters of goods. If I am better at producing shoes than shirts, it is better to let someone else produce shirts, even if I am better at producing shirts than they are, because it frees me up to make more shoes. So, how does my proposal do away with comparative advantage?
Libertarian was coined by the French because the monarchy made it illegal to publish anything about anarchism.
Proudhon was not a proto-Marxist state socialist. Kropotkin supported the overthrow of a corrupt dictatorship, and Czolgosz was an outcast who called himself an anarchist even though anarchists of his time refused to accept him. Got any more propaganda you'd like me to debunk?
I was being a little flippant when I called out libertarians for their choice of name. My real issue is with anarcho-capitalists. I believe as Proudhon did that property is theft. If you aren't using it, you have no right to it. Lending for profit is also wrong.
Private property is anathema to freedom. It leads to tyranny, and a reduction in 'free will,' meaning, those with property can force their will on those without.
I'm glad to learn that you are better educated than I first thought.
What's going to stop them from screwing us worse without government? Is Adam Smith's Invisible Hand going to come down out of the clouds and stroke them off so they forget about us? Government so far has managed to be the lube that makes it hurt a little less when the rich screw the poor.
Look, I'm all for less government, but not until the playing field is a little more level. Not flat, but fair. At the very minimum, everyone needs a guarantee they will have access to a sufficient quantity of resources to sustain themselves through their own work at a subsistence level.
In a purely libertarian setting, you can't guarantee that except through the dubious means of private charity, which still leaves the problem of all the free riders benefiting from the stability of a safety net without paying for it.
And I don't mean the poor taking advantage of guaranteed minimums, I mean the rich who benefit enormously from the stability such systems provide, but don't want to pay for them.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the best teachers I ever had was a humanities teacher in high school. She went to every seminar on teaching, developmental psychology, and learning she could find time and money for. Then she would come back and try to put what she learned into practice.
One time she came back and had us all do tests to determine learning style and left/right brain bias. In the theory she learned, there are four styles, learning by reading, hearing a lecture, seeing a demonstration, and doing an activity. This doesn't tend to correlate with gender. As well, some people are more right brained/intuitive, and some are more left brained/logical. This does.
She tried to make time for all learning styles in proportion to how many could learn well in that style. One tool she used was having us all do brain maps rather than take standard notes. She said this engaged more different styles of learning, helping even kinesthetic learners.
Oh sadness. I just went to look up learning styles on wikipedia, and evidently, there is a LOT of criticism of this technique, and no credible evidence it helps kids learn better. Ah well, another cherished childhood memory tarnished. :(
Good point, I was going to mention that. It's actually more complex, people have four different primary learning styles, and most schools only teach to one or two. It isn't just gender.
People can learn through hearing something, reading something, watching something, or doing something. Most schools only teach through lecture and books, with a relatively few demonstrations and lab activities for the other learning styles.
Teachers only have a limited amount of time and attention. It would be nice if we could hire an unlimited amount of good teachers, but we can't. IF teachers were giving unfair amounts of that time and attention to boys, and IF we decide not to spend more money on teachers, then the correct action to take is to increase the amount of time and attention given to girls, at the expense of the boys.
IF this is just dumbing down the curriculum in order to level the playing field, then that would be wrong. But I don't see any evidence that is the case.
If you've got proof, I'll buy it. Otherwise, what we have here is self serving propaganda.
I knew that line would get a rise out of someone. A day without making someone uncomfortable is a wasted day in my book. Are you a white male, by chance? Whiner.
I never said that the genders are perfectly equal.
If there is unfairness in the way that biology and psychology are taught, and there are ways of teaching those subjects that would be more accessible to boys, then yes, of course I support using those methods. Why would you assume otherwise?
Certainly consciousness and intelligence come with responsibility. But why? I postulate that there is no external scale for anything, that all measurements are made with scales constructed within any given system. There is no good or evil external to the sentient mind. There is also no external scale that says we are better than other animals.
We do need to punish transgressions such as this because it is effective to do so. Some people can only reason based on a primitive and immediate understanding of self interest. They need to understand that they will be punished for things that harm society, because they can't see the larger reasons not to do so.
There is no reason to punish a rat for eating its babies or a lion for killing its food. It won't accomplish anything useful to society. That is the difference between us and animals, not some arbitrary moral rule.
The root of this dilemma boils down to agency and free will. We feel that conscious agents with free will should be held to a different set of standards than processes that do not possess free will. We feel that they COULD have made a different choice, and only by punishment can we induce them to make different choices in the future.
But free will is an illusion. In order for free will to exist, there must be a disjuncture between will and reality. The self, in this theory, is postulated as self-existing, that is, it exists apart from the rest of reality. That is false. Self and reality are like the faces and vases illusion. Look at it one way, you see external reality, look at it another, you see the self, but they are really just two ways of looking at the same thing.
Does this mean agents don't make choices? Of course they do. But this process is an emergent phenomenon and choices are conditioned by experience. We can look at the conditions that lead to a person making a choice that is detrimental to society, and figure out ways to remove those conditions so that in the future, agents do not make those detrimental choices.
Free will contains an inherent paradox. Either will is influenced by 'external' reality or it isn't. If will is separate from reality, and not influenced by it, then the self is incapable of learning. If will is an emergent property of reality, and conditioned by it, it makes no sense to put qualifiers on it and claim, well, in THIS situation, this person could have chosen differently. Either self is entirely conditioned by reality, or it isn't, and if it isn't, then how do we learn from our actions?
I think self itself is an illusion. There is no little man inside my head, looking out through my eyes and listening through my ears. The sense of self is just another sense. It serves to orient the internal mental model of the universe. When a sentient needs to know who these sense impressions and thoughts apply to, the sense of self points to the internal model of the self and says, THAT is who these thoughts and senses apply to.
In a movie, the sounds are actually another track on the film. If you think of our senses as a movie, then the sense of self is just another track on the film, it is not someone watching the film.
How does correcting an unfair imbalance equal hamstringing? More attention was paid to boys, and they did better. Now that teachers are giving more time to girls and teaching in a more gender neutral fashion, the scores are becoming more equal. If I give you something that I don't give to others, and then I take some of that away from you in order to more fairly distribute it, I am not hamstringing you.
Its sad, so many people have gotten used to having unfair advantage, they consider it their birthright. White males tend to be the worst whiners.
I know you. You are that lousy lawyer who lost to him in court, aren't you? HAH-HAH!
Most humans have a natural desire for justice and fairness. This is evolutionarily advantageous, it helps us build functional societies. Punishment is a tool. It is never 'right,' or 'good' to punish, those are moral judgments. Sometimes, it is effective, that is all we need say about it.
This was no more right or wrong than a rat eating its babies, or a lion killing an antelope. Shit happens. We punish transgressions like this not because the act is wrong or bad, but because it is ineffective, it doesn't work for society, and we are programmed to uphold what is right.
All punishment starts from within. It usually starts from a moral judgment or a feeling that something is not right with the universe. But right and wrong don't exist outside the minds of sentient beings.
You know the saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged?" One will not make moral judgments against another unless one thinks that making moral judgments is a good thing. If you think it is a good thing, you will do it to yourself.
There is no place you can hide from your own judgment. People who make moral judgments are trapped in their own skulls with a monster they can't hide from or defend against. They use their own power against themselves.
This man has no capacity to damage society anymore. There are therefore only two possible reasons to hope for a Hell for him to suffer in. One obviously faulty reason is the hope that his suffering will restore some kind of balance to the universe. But his actions never had the power to put the universe out of moral balance. Nothing does.
The other reason is the hope that his suffering in hell will somehow deter others. Which might be true if there were any kind of proof it was happening, but there isn't.
Wanting to punish this dead man only reinforces the desire to punish in general. It tells the part of our brain that makes judgments and metes out punishment that it is doing the right thing. And some day, all that righteous anger, pain, and humiliation will be directed internally, at the person making the judgment, as soon as they fail to live up to their own internal rulebook.
Don't get me wrong, discernment is a good thing. Knowing what works and what doesn't, and why, is a good thing. And fortunately, doing 'good' does not require moral judgment, only discernment and self interest.
Perhaps the worst thing about moral judgment is that it gets in the way of true discernment. If one thinks that certain things are inherently evil and need to be punished, one will have a hard time honestly recognizing when one is doing those things. I said there was no defense against the monster in our heads, that is not quite true. One can lie to oneself.
But if one refrains from judgment, both internal and external, one can really, honestly look at one's actions, decide which are effective and which ineffective, and reward the effective actions. Reward is the only motivator for new behaviors.
Wow, long rant. And I will admit, forgiveness is hard. It is much easier to give in to the feelings of anger and moral righteousness. I still do much of the time. But I don't judge myself for judging myself. :)
So don't judge this guy. Realize his actions were part of a larger pattern, that they weren't effective, that they did not bring him what he wanted, that they are detrimental to society, and that those sorts of actions should be punished only to help society function better, not because they were evil. He is now beyond the ability to harm society, and beyond our ability to witness his punishment, so all practical reasons to wish for punishment are gone.
What is left is only the mind's desire to judge everything in the universe, and harm that which is judged evil. Acting on that desire is harmful to the self.
Are you an IP lawyer? Do you know that you are arguing with one?
It has to be a creative expression. I remember some years ago a printer manufacturer put art on a chip in their cartridges and had the printers check for it. They sued cartridge makers who copied their art. The judge ruled against them, as the art was not considered a creative expression, but a copy protection mechanism. Game boards are usually not considered creative expressions.
You can't copyright a game. Hasbro is suing them over the trademark. Scrabulous should have used a name that doesn't sound like Scrabble, then there would be nothing Hasbro could do. Perhaps Scrabulous could change their name to Crapple.
You can't take it from me now! I've had this ice-cream bar since I was a CHILD! People...always trying to take it from me! Why won't they LEAVE ME ALOOOOOONNNNE?
Here on Slashdot, a Wife is at the very least a mythical creature like a Gorgon or a Chimera, if not an actual Deity. Capitalization is required.
I think that counts as machinima. It was entirely staged for comedic effect, poking fun at guilds that over plan and strategize.
Are you that dense, or just pretending not to understand the point? Different people have different definitions of win. For instance, if we are playing chess, and I shoot you in the head, have I won? A sociopath might think so, but most people wouldn't.
Similarly, we might have won the war by bombing Japan, but many people still count that as a loss for humanity in general. We might have won a nuclear war against the Soviet Union, but it would have involved general, planet wide devastation, thus putting it in the 'loss' column for most people.
I have to ask, does might always make right in your world view?
I've had good and bad experiences with police. I think cops have two modes, 'serve and protect' mode, and 'kick the shit out of the criminal' mode. You don't want to do anything that puts them in the second mode, which includes mouthing off to them.
When I volunteered with Food Not Bombs, we handed out free soup and bagels in front of city hall in San Francisco. The mayor did NOT like this, so he rounded up the worst cops and set them on us.
I've been beaten down for handing out free food. I've seen cops wrench my friend's arms out of their sockets, stomp on their heads, and drag them off. I've seen them pour soup into the gutter in front of hundreds of hungry people. That's a little hard to forgive.
I don't think all cops are bad. But there are problems with the police. First, who becomes a cop? A few people who really want to do good, a few people who really like power over others, and a bunch of people who just didn't have any better options.
Second, cops see the worst side of life and society, and it makes them callous and jaded. They expect the worst because they've seen it every day. Not enough emphasis is placed on proper psychological counseling for police. They really need it.
Finally, cops protect each other. Which makes sense when you are on the street together facing danger. But they take it too far, and protect each other from consequences of very bad decisions as well. Cops get away with things that they would instantly bust others for.
That being said, outside of protest situations, I've had nothing but good interactions with the police. They've been polite and helpful. But once you start making a fuss, not even busting up property but just protesting, they turn mean. They represent authority, and they will not have authority questioned.
Yum! Salty lemonade, my favourite!
Gatorade Marine will be marketed for its unique patented electrolytes.
It's got what plants crave!
A popular misconception in the 1960s and 1970s that XYY males were more prone to criminal behavior led to several novels and TV series which exploited the idea with little regard to the science.
Please read the pages you quote to see if they actually support your hypothesis.
1.) So they are conservatives, not liberals, but happen to distrust large business, got it.
2.) You don't understand comparative advantage at all. Monopolies must be restricted in any case, they lead to failure of the free market. And of course if everyone is equally as good at everything, there is no competitive advantage, but so what? Everyone is producing at maximum efficiency anyway. Or are you assuming that everyone will be equally bad at everything, and if so, why so negative?
3.) Awful used to mean awesome. Words change. In a political sense, Libertarian means a particular thing, and it always has.
4.) Anarchism is not about total dissolution of all organization. That is simple chaos. Anarchism is not about lack of leaders or structure, it is about not having coercive rulers, either political or economic.
5.) So, you must not support the American Revolution, what with all the nasty violence.
6.) No, there isn't. Rather, I get to decide for myself whether I accept someone's characterization of themselves as anarchist. And you get to decide for yourself.
"Now *that's* what I call *pod-racing*!"
Now all we need is some Sand People to shoot at the racers, and we're all set!
Well, they got startled, but I'm sure they'll return in greater numbers.
Most 'quasi-sollipsistic outdoorsmen' I've known tend to be conservatives. But I'll admit that there may be some American left libertarians. I haven't met any, but 'libertarian' is a general term outside the US for any sort of anarchist.
Comparative advantage comes when there is a difference in production cost between exporters of goods. If I am better at producing shoes than shirts, it is better to let someone else produce shirts, even if I am better at producing shirts than they are, because it frees me up to make more shoes. So, how does my proposal do away with comparative advantage?
Libertarian was coined by the French because the monarchy made it illegal to publish anything about anarchism.
Proudhon was not a proto-Marxist state socialist. Kropotkin supported the overthrow of a corrupt dictatorship, and Czolgosz was an outcast who called himself an anarchist even though anarchists of his time refused to accept him. Got any more propaganda you'd like me to debunk?
I was being a little flippant when I called out libertarians for their choice of name. My real issue is with anarcho-capitalists. I believe as Proudhon did that property is theft. If you aren't using it, you have no right to it. Lending for profit is also wrong.
Private property is anathema to freedom. It leads to tyranny, and a reduction in 'free will,' meaning, those with property can force their will on those without.
I'm glad to learn that you are better educated than I first thought.
What's going to stop them from screwing us worse without government? Is Adam Smith's Invisible Hand going to come down out of the clouds and stroke them off so they forget about us? Government so far has managed to be the lube that makes it hurt a little less when the rich screw the poor.
Look, I'm all for less government, but not until the playing field is a little more level. Not flat, but fair. At the very minimum, everyone needs a guarantee they will have access to a sufficient quantity of resources to sustain themselves through their own work at a subsistence level.
In a purely libertarian setting, you can't guarantee that except through the dubious means of private charity, which still leaves the problem of all the free riders benefiting from the stability of a safety net without paying for it.
And I don't mean the poor taking advantage of guaranteed minimums, I mean the rich who benefit enormously from the stability such systems provide, but don't want to pay for them.