Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

F u tsar and not the good way!

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Hump definitely has more then 5 points!

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:The thing is, I have to see a selfie of Humph. If Humph is sexier than NST, I give 'em 15 more sexy points. It all depends.

Could you not say "selfie".

It makes me doubt your intellect.

Ww2 role play. I am leader of the German American Bund.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:Sorry, I've been loosing brain cells recently... accidemtly listened to Justin bieber.

Wow what a coincidence I just sand jb to communal.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

I'll have to read up on RevSpain; from what I know it and (kinda) Ukraine are the only two partial large scale successes in communism. What I don't understand, Tsar, is how you can ascribe the label "voluntary" to the anarchists. While it is true that they were much better than Franco, it seems as though the syndicates were made on the expropriation of business owner's factories/capital (i.e. coercive theft), so I'm not seeing how this movement is anything but decentralized statism.

Anyway, I'd like to start a debate and I'm going to put a poll up for this. Intellectual Property. I diverge somewhat from my normal Objectivist tendencies on this issue (as I do on politics). I'd like to hear your opinions on intellectual property. Perhaps some links.

When will you guys realize frisbeetarianism is the only religion that makes sense? :p

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

I don't think ideas should be copyrighted. If you have a product, and someone can make it better and cheaper.. sucks for you. I'll leave it at that.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:All these factories and businesses were origionally unionized, and the process to workplace democracy was already secured. For many factories, owners of factories usually fled Spain to England during the war, and many other wealthy people... only to return to a Fascist dictatorship. Anyway, the murders of landowners is expected in any leftist revolution. These weren't orders from the C.N.T.-F.A.I., but individual action.

Also, when I say voluntary I meen it was welcomed by the working class, and they did it themselves. It wasn't imposed by a heiarchy. That's voluntary. If we're to make exceptions to voluntary acceptance, than all ideologies that claim to be voluntary, aren't actually voluntary. Since, there are always people who dislike and do not accept these ideologies.

The bourgeois were quite a minority in Spain.

How does one "originally unionize" a factory? Capital accumulation must take place first (this is even key in marxian dialectics). Great, let's just kill all the people who own land -*cough, kulaks in the USSR*- that should solve all our problems.

Are you trying to equate individual violations of property rights and outright unethical behavior with voluntaryism?

What the flapjacks. Am I to understand you believe it's moral to violate individuals' rights if they're a minority.....

Somehow, I knew Minerva would pick the combo option.

Zeouria wrote:In other news, humphy is humpilicous! He receives 10 sexy points, putting him at 11. NST is 12, so you'll have to impress Mel humphy, to get more points.

*bows to applause*

Post self-deleted by Liberosia.

I am for copyright laws but I think the internet should be long to everyone.

Liberosia wrote:Somehow, I knew Minerva would pick the combo option.

Don't want to know...

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Don't want to know...

It was a serious comment.

Liberosia wrote:It was a serious comment.

I don't understand.

Get out of my head!

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Liberosia wrote:How does one "originally unionize" a factory? Capital accumulation must take place first (this is even key in marxian dialectics). Great, let's just kill all the people who own land -*cough, kulaks in the USSR*- that should solve all our problems.

Are you trying to equate individual violations of property rights and outright unethical behavior with voluntaryism?

What the flapjacks. Am I to understand you believe it's moral to violate individuals' rights if they're a minority.....

Marxian Dialectics don't define Communism. They define Marxism.

Ridicule. The same could be said about you: "Let's just kill all statists."

If you are implying voluntaryism is inherently capitalistic, you aren't a voluntaryist. Voluntaryism is nearly synonymous with Anarchism without Adjectives, despite that the former came from strains of capitalist thought and the latter from strains of communist thought.

Um. Unionization doesn't violate your rights. (Unless, theoretically, you had part of the contract or employment say workers can't unionize, in which you would fire them if they do). It's voluntary association of workers.

And morality is subjective. "Moral" and "unethical" are appeals to either authority, being the moral authority, or emotion. Take your pick.

The state will never be dissolved because ancaps spend too much time fighting "socialism" and Libsocs sit around beating up capitalism. Why don't you get together and fight the fvcking state!!!! The systems aren't even mutually exclusive under Voluntaryism.

Zeouria wrote:Underground unions, unionized factories; the C.N.T.

The revolution had an unexpected time, but still there was quite a bit a modernization and accumulation of capital in Spain.

I am not condoning the murdering of anyone, you have gotten me wrong. The murder of landowners is -- or any other group labeled any enemy of any revolution -- is to be expected. Those things happen, and again it was not an order by the C.N.T., rather individual action.

Yes, you are looking at voluntaryism through Anarcho-Capitalist eyes.

Property rights are a social construct. The means of production and land, should be worked towards the bennifit of all. That is ethical.

No. The imposment of the bourgeois in Spain on the majority was similar to that of the imposement by the bourgeoisie on the working class during the industrial revolution. It was comllelty immoral, and many lived in complete poverty.

That's still extortion; just because it's underground doesn't make it right. Yet if this is some alleged "People's Revolution", based on a decentralist principle, then all actions should be judged on their morality.

I'm not looking through "anarcho capitalist" eyes; I am looking through the lens of a rational egoist (i.e. a life-loving man). One could be a utilitarian anarcho capitalist (like David Friedman). Since I am not, I do not use economics usually to justify my ethical positions. The whole "social construct" thing is, in my experience, a phrase used by start-up subjectivist (pseudo?) intellectuals. If the phrase has any worth in its intended meaning (that societal principles are arbitrary and inconsequential), then all you have done is concede amorality (while simultaneously claiming some abstract standard of value on a collective). We've been over this: ethics can be logically derived. Your ethical conclusion may be valid, but it could also be false. This is so because you have incorrect premises.

Experts can deal with this last comment about the industrial revolution. Too much of a fallacy for me to address in one post. I suggest you read some lit by von Mises et al. so that you can learn some education.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Liberosia wrote:That's still extortion; just because it's underground doesn't make it right. Yet if this is some alleged "People's Revolution", based on a decentralist principle, then all actions should be judged on their morality.

I'm not looking through "anarcho capitalist" eyes; I am looking through the lens of a rational egoist (i.e. a life-loving man). One could be a utilitarian anarcho capitalist (like David Friedman). Since I am not, I do not use economics usually to justify my ethical positions. The whole "social construct" thing is, in my experience, a phrase used by start-up subjectivist (pseudo?) intellectuals. If the phrase has any worth in its intended meaning (that societal principles are arbitrary and inconsequential), then all you have done is concede amorality (while simultaneously claiming some abstract standard of value on a collective). We've been over this: ethics can be logically derived. Your ethical conclusion may be valid, but it could also be false. This is so because you have incorrect premises.

Experts can deal with this last comment about the industrial revolution. Too much of a fallacy for me to address in one post. I suggest you read some lit by von Mises et al. so that you can learn some education.

By Anarcho-Capitalist eyes, he means you are seeing that voluntaryism=capitalism. It does not. Voluntaryism is..."aeconomic". Any system, so long as it's voluntary, can exist.

I would agree Rev Spain wasn't voluntaryist, however, it is a good example of syndicalism and anarchism functioning.

Nst Anarchist Interregional 1St Division wrote:Marxian Dialectics don't define Communism. They define Marxism.

Ridicule. The same could be said about you: "Let's just kill all statists."

If you are implying voluntaryism is inherently capitalistic, you aren't a voluntaryist. Voluntaryism is nearly synonymous with Anarchism without Adjectives, despite that the former came from strains of capitalist thought and the latter from strains of communist thought.

Um. Unionization doesn't violate your rights. (Unless, theoretically, you had part of the contract or employment say workers can't unionize, in which you would fire them if they do). It's voluntary association of workers.

And morality is subjective. "Moral" and "unethical" are appeals to either authority, being the moral authority, or emotion. Take your pick.

The logic stands.

Except in the libertarian case killing statists is retaliation, not the initiation of force.

I'm not implying that. I am implying that voluntaryism is inherently rights based (rational egoism) in its purest form. That voluntaryism literally means only voluntary relations between individuals (i.e. voluntary contracts), and that this means the negation of initiatory physical force. It's not my fault that the natural tendency of freedom is to capitalism.

Logic is the judge. The standard of value is an individual's life. The will to power is irrelevant to the question of ethics.

Nst Anarchist Interregional 1St Division wrote:By Anarcho-Capitalist eyes, he means you are seeing that voluntaryism=capitalism. It does not. Voluntaryism is..."aeconomic". Any system, so long as it's voluntary, can exist.

I would agree Rev Spain wasn't voluntaryist, however, it is a good example of syndicalism and anarchism functioning.

Yeah, well, I'm not. See my last post.

I'm guessing there is a lot of fog surrounding the Spanish anarchists. I must uncover the mystery.

Voluntaryism is anarcho-capitalism on the basis of the NAP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryist

Not even Anarchist FAQ considers ancaps to be anarchists, and maintains that anarchism is by default, anti-capitalist.

Can I please hear y'all's opinions on IP? The variety is very interesting.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Voluntaryism is anarcho-capitalism on the basis of the NAP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryist

Not even Anarchist FAQ considers ancaps to be anarchists, and maintains that anarchism is by default, anti-capitalist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF1.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF2.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF3.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF4.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF5.html

etc.

It would be therefore prudent for AnCaps to take Rothbard's word and drop the label anarcho-capitalism all together.

As much as TNST and Tsar try, I do not see any harmony between anti-statist capitalists and anarchists anytime soon, as the vast majority of anarchists continue to base their opposition to capitalism on equal grounds as their opposition to the state, and contend that merely being against the state doesn't make you a capitalist.

Liberosia wrote:The logic stands.

Except in the libertarian case killing statists is retaliation, not the initiation of force.

I'm not implying that. I am implying that voluntaryism is inherently rights based (rational egoism) in its purest form. That voluntaryism literally means only voluntary relations between individuals (i.e. voluntary contracts), and that this means the negation of initiatory physical force. It's not my fault that the natural tendency of freedom is to capitalism.

Logic is the judge. The standard of value is an individual's life. The will to power is irrelevant to the question of ethics.

That's like saying Objectivist Claims apply to all libertarianism. It is....not true, to be completely honest.

Not all statists are inherently guilty of state crimes.

I argue for voluntaryism from somewhat humanistic ideals, so it isn't egoist. Individualist, yes, but not egoist.

No economic system has a natural tendency towards freedom. Capitalism has hierarchy, socialism holds back individuals.

There is no standard of value. Value is whatever you want it to be.

Zeouria wrote:There literally is no objective morality or ethics. It's a social construct. It does not exist outside of us.

May I ask where you obtained this gem of a piece of info? As in, could you list the philosophical works you have read (or read part of) that lead you to this (wrong) conclusion?

Liberosia wrote:Can I please hear y'all's opinions on IP? The variety is very interesting.

The way I see it is that if you have some specific way of doing something so that it's better / invented something new / etc., you should be able to protect the process through which you made that thing and the thing you made.

Do I think we're going about that correctly? Hell no. Do I think it's something that should be protected, at least a little bit? Yes, but really just as a "hey, I did this so if you knowingly do the same exact thing and try to make money on it, I'll come after you", not a "hey your thing is similar to / better than / used the same formula as but somehow is worse than mine so I'm suing you".

All in all, for me it just boils down to secret formulas that you don't want other people to copy, because you managed to do it better than anyone else and you want to profit off of your ingenuity. We're supposed to be all about ingenuity.

I'm a bit concerned with where we're taking copyright laws, though, but I'm all for the basic idea of protecting what you've made. Stuff like what YouTube has been doing with copyrighted music and footage is way out of line though. As long as you didn't get it illegally, you should be able to broadcast it for other people. And, y'know, you should be able to broadcast it even if you did pirate it anyways, because there are so many places to get music and stuff for free that it really shouldn't even be a problem anymore.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF1.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF2.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF3.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF4.html

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secF5.html

etc.

It would be therefore prudent for AnCaps to take Rothbard's word and drop the label anarcho-capitalism all together.

As much as TNST and Tsar try, I do not see any harmony between anti-statist capitalists and anarchists anytime soon, as the vast majority of anarchists continue to base their opposition to capitalism on equal grounds as their opposition to the state, and contend that merely being against the state doesn't make you a capitalist.

I disagree with them as well. Voluntaryism is economically fluid. Any anarchist could associate however he pleases, so long as it is voluntary. The same principle applies in Anarchism without Adjectives.

Nst Anarchist Interregional 1St Division wrote:That's like saying Objectivist Claims apply to all libertarianism. It is....not true, to be completely honest.

Not all statists are inherently guilty of state crimes.

I argue for voluntaryism from somewhat humanistic ideals, so it isn't egoist. Individualist, yes, but not egoist.

No economic system has a natural tendency towards freedom. Capitalism has hierarchy, socialism holds back individuals.

There is no standard of value. Value is whatever you want it to be.

Well, yeah, I can't make people be rational and better. They have to choose that.

True, I must concede here. But the argument stands for the "d!cks of history" (i.e. stalin et al., hitler et al., etc.)

Would you please clarify the difference between egoist and individualist?

Absolute freedom should not exist, and this is why ethics are imperative so we can establish a civilized society. Capitalism isn't about absolute freedom, it's about the rights of the individual.

Liberosia wrote:May I ask where you obtained this gem of a piece of info? As in, could you list the philosophical works you have read (or read part of) that lead you to this (wrong) conclusion?

If you are arguing for objective morality, then all of your philosophy is instantly skewed. Morality is not objective in any way, shape or form.

Morality is not objective, it is a tool used as a means for societal organization and it does not exist outside of the human mind.

Liberosia wrote:May I ask where you obtained this gem of a piece of info? As in, could you list the philosophical works you have read (or read part of) that lead you to this (wrong) conclusion?

Morality and ethics are by nature founded upon personal opinion and thus can never be objective.

It's just the way the world works. Morality must be subjective because it is created from opinions.

I think people shouldn't murder other people. That's my opinion, and it is by extension my opinion that murder is immoral.

Morality is an opinion, and as ethics are moral systems, they too are opinions, and thus are subjective.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Nst Anarchist Interregional 1St Division wrote:If you are arguing for objective morality, then all of your philosophy is instantly skewed. Morality is not objective in any way, shape or form.

Morality is not objective, it is a tool used as a means for societal organization and it does not exist outside of the human mind.

Perhaps you are conflating objectivity with intrinsic theories. A logical proof is either true or false depending on the premise, so I apply this system to ethics. Morality is a biological imperative for a rational animal (which is also why altruism is illegitimate as an ethical theory), and ethics is a societal imperative based on the biological imperative. It's a chain or reasoning. I suggest you attempt it.

Miencraft wrote:Morality and ethics are by nature founded upon personal opinion and thus can never be objective.

It's just the way the world works. Morality must be subjective because it is created from opinions.

I think people shouldn't murder other people. That's my opinion, and it is by extension my opinion that murder is immoral.

Morality is an opinion, and as ethics are moral systems, they too are opinions, and thus are subjective.

Opinions are not equal to one another. Logical conclusions are valid, arbitrary opinions are meaningless; just apply logic to morality. Simply because something is optional does not make it subjective. Furthermore for clarification, I am not talking about the metaphysical, but the epistemological definition of objectivity.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Miencraft wrote:The way I see it is that if you have some specific way of doing something so that it's better / invented something new / etc., you should be able to protect the process through which you made that thing and the thing you made.

Do I think we're going about that correctly? Hell no. Do I think it's something that should be protected, at least a little bit? Yes, but really just as a "hey, I did this so if you knowingly do the same exact thing and try to make money on it, I'll come after you", not a "hey your thing is similar to / better than / used the same formula as but somehow is worse than mine so I'm suing you".

All in all, for me it just boils down to secret formulas that you don't want other people to copy, because you managed to do it better than anyone else and you want to profit off of your ingenuity. We're supposed to be all about ingenuity.

I'm a bit concerned with where we're taking copyright laws, though, but I'm all for the basic idea of protecting what you've made. Stuff like what YouTube has been doing with copyrighted music and footage is way out of line though. As long as you didn't get it illegally, you should be able to broadcast it for other people. And, y'know, you should be able to broadcast it even if you did pirate it anyways, because there are so many places to get music and stuff for free that it really shouldn't even be a problem anymore.

I just realized I accidentally contradicted myself.

But the basic point is that, to me, all a copyright is is just something to say that you made something and that only you can sell it. When it comes to streaming services like YouTube, since you're not selling, say, the music in the video, but rather the video as a whole and by extension encouraging people to go and find the music being played, then copyright shouldn't really apply to stuff like that because you're not actually selling the copyrighted material. Are you profiting off of something that has the copyrighted material in it? Yes. But is that the only thing in the video? Most likely not. Usually it's going to be covered up by voice or game audio or something, so generally people will want to find the unobstructed music to listen to.

Post self-deleted by Zeouria.

Zeouria wrote:I read critical thought, by me.

That's fine. A little arrogant, but fine.

You're right in that ethics and morality are a social construct, but you have incorrectly assessed its significance.

This somewhat-arbitrary standard of rules that differs by culture might seem strange at an outward glance, but it is the entire basis of human interaction. Ethical and moral standards subdue the more primal and savage aspects of human nature, and are useful in terms of minimizing conflict. In fact, many conflicts are the result of conflicting cultural values, which is something humanity as a whole has gotten better at preventing over time (though we still have a long way to go).

The reason people don't greet each other on the street with attempted murder? The reason someone says "bless you" instead of "screw you" when you sneeze? The reason you have the right to your own property? That's morality at work, and I must say, I'm quite a fan of it.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Liberosia wrote:Well, yeah, I can't make people be rational and better. They have to choose that.

True, I must concede here. But the argument stands for the "d!cks of history" (i.e. stalin et al., hitler et al., etc.)

Would you please clarify the difference between egoist and individualist?

Absolute freedom should not exist, and this is why ethics are imperative so we can establish a civilized society. Capitalism isn't about absolute freedom, it's about the rights of the individual.

You aren't being rational right now. You are saying capitalism is naturally free. In every way except the fact it isn't , sure. Capitalism is only free if it is voluntarily accepted, just like every other economic system. Nothing is naturally free.

Individualism is a term used to describe something that focuses on the individual, rather than *insert non-individual here*. Ethical Egoism is the idea that humans "ought" to be selfish, which is not "true" or "false". “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist", to quote Nietzsche. Your ethics are yours, mine are mine. There is nothing we "ought" to be.

Absolute Freedom should exist. Because, absolute freedom, or the maximum freedom possible, would be Voluntaryism. Your rights are only limited by other's rights. Any freedom that overrides other's freedom creates tyranny and thus destroys freedom. The Maximization of Liberty would be a Voluntary Society. Ethics are needed to create a functional society, yes. Doesn't mean ethics are objective. And wow. I could turn that upside down soooooo easily. Capitalism is no more individualistic than communism, syndicalism, mutualism, collectivism (economic system, not philosophy), primitivism, or any other if it is not voluntary. If you require people to live under capitalism, it is just as bad as any statist society.

Zeouria wrote:It doesn't matter how "logical" one can claim his or her morality is, it's completely subjective. It has been created in the mind, it does not exist in nature. If you say egoism is moral since it benefits the individual, I can say altruism is moral since it benefits others, who in turn benefit and help you.

Provided this is done through voluntary cooperation, it is still rational egoism.

The mind is natural and thought is made of matter. It exists metaphysically for the individual, as well as epistemologically, and therefore exists in its own right (this is not my argument however).

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:You're right in that ethics and morality are a social construct, but you have incorrectly assessed its significance.

This somewhat-arbitrary standard of rules that differs by culture might seem strange at an outward glance, but it is the entire basis of human interaction. Ethical and moral standards subdue the more primal and savage aspects of human nature, and are useful in terms of minimizing conflict. In fact, many conflicts are the result of conflicting cultural values, which is something humanity as a whole has gotten better at preventing over time (though we still have a long way to go).

The reason people don't greet each other on the street with attempted murder? The reason someone says "bless you" instead of "screw you" when you sneeze? The reason you have the right to your own property? That's morality at work, and I must say, I'm quite a fan of it.

No one is against morality. But basing a socioeconomic system off appeals to something equally arbitrary as the very system you implement is laughable.

Morality is necessary for society to function, yes. That doesn't make it objective.

Liberosia wrote:Provided this is done through voluntary cooperation, it is still rational egoism.

The mind is natural and thought is made of matter. It exists metaphysically for the individual, as well as epistemologically, and therefore exists in its own right (this is not my argument however).

No it isn't.

If it exists in his own right, then everyone's right could be, and usually is in some way, different. Thus, morality is subjective.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Nst Anarchist Interregional 1St Division wrote:You aren't being rational right now. You are saying capitalism is naturally free. In every way except the fact it isn't , sure. Capitalism is only free if it is voluntarily accepted, just like every other economic system. Nothing is naturally free.

Individualism is a term used to describe something that focuses on the individual, rather than *insert non-individual here*. Ethical Egoism is the idea that humans "ought" to be selfish, which is not "true" or "false". “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist", to quote Nietzsche. Your ethics are yours, mine are mine. There is nothing we "ought" to be.

Absolute Freedom should exist. Because, absolute freedom, or the maximum freedom possible, would be Voluntaryism. Your rights are only limited by other's rights. Any freedom that overrides other's freedom creates tyranny and thus destroys freedom. The Maximization of Liberty would be a Voluntary Society. Ethics are needed to create a functional society, yes. Doesn't mean ethics are objective. And wow. I could turn that upside down soooooo easily. Capitalism is no more individualistic than communism, syndicalism, mutualism, collectivism (economic system, not philosophy), primitivism, or any other if it is not voluntary. If you require people to live under capitalism, it is just as bad as any statist society.

No, I'm saying capitalism is based on rights. You're strawmanning my argument.

So you finally brought out Nietzsche, great. Rational egoism is the logical conclusion of people who accept that man's fundamental moral premise is the achievement of happiness. Whether this is done by living in groups or owning a business does not matter: happiness is the biological mechanism that affirms life. Whilst one lives it is rational to pursue happiness.

Absolute freedom is the freedom from ethics. A longing for freedom from causality. Rights is the restraint of action. Okay, so I force someone not to kill me, I retaliate. Protection of RIGHTS is the fundamental of any laissez-faire system. Under whatever the hell anarchy or pseudo-voluntaryist society most alleged "anarchists" claim my rights would be violated.

Zeouria wrote:If a group of individuals wish to believe in a different moral thought than yours, what does it matter? It all goes into Voluntaryism which you have expressed you agree with.

Well...Voluntaryism is a socioeconomic system. So, technically yes, but that's not the way to argue for it. The argument should be that Voluntaryism is the greatest way for humanity to function, and it functions on a few basic principles people must follow. Yes, they are subjective, but subjective moralities can be objectively debated to see which would function more efficiently. I see voluntaryism as the best possible system for human existence, as force harms society. As for the moral codes, a better way to say it is "Whether you like it or not, in any system, people disagree with you."

Morality is indeed subjective, but I don't believe that a moral system is necessarily foolish (though it certainly can be). While individuals may have varying moral standards, there are a number of significant ethical standards (often relating to that of a person's rights) that should not be subverted by any individual, lest they be considered a criminal by their peers.

Zeouria wrote:I totally agree. Morality is quite necessary. My morality differs from Liberosia's here, and that pisses him off. I'm not saying morality isn't a good thing, it's just subjective.

False, I am not pissed off.

Nst Anarchist Interregional 1St Division wrote:No one is against morality. But basing a socioeconomic system off appeals to something equally arbitrary as the very system you implement is laughable.

Morality is necessary for society to function, yes. That doesn't make it objective.

Logic isn't really arbitrary. Rational identification of reality isn't either. The laughable position is to believe that morality isn't absolutely key to life. It's an objective necessity. A requirement for the rational animal.

Nst Anarchist Interregional 1St Division wrote:No it isn't.

If it exists in his own right, then everyone's right could be, and usually is in some way, different. Thus, morality is subjective.

Thus I go back to epistemology

Zeouria wrote:If a group of individuals wish to believe in a different moral thought than yours, what does it matter? It all goes into Voluntaryism which you have expressed you agree with.

Perhaps their moral thought is that I must die because I was born the white son of a businessman. I'd say it matters then.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Morality is indeed subjective, but I don't believe that a moral system is necessarily foolish (though it certainly can be). While individuals may have varying moral standards, there are a number of significant ethical standards (often relating to that of a person's rights) that should not be subverted by any individual, lest they be considered a criminal by their peers.

Basically, egoism, except for it being subjective. If you dispute this, then I do not wish to respond on the RMB with a definition of rational egoism. I'd rather just reference a few good essays.

Guys, I swear one day I am going to flip out and go full on fascist.

But until that day, FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOM

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

I would like to put an end to this debate on the RMB for now, but if any of you have any books/articles you'd like me to read on the subject I'd like to do so. I would also like to continue this discussion in the telegrams.

On another note, can we get some more opinions on IP? Thank you Miencraft.

Zeouria wrote:Then their morality is against voluntaryism and your right to live.

Oh my God yes this is exactly what I'm getting at

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Guys, I swear one day I am going to flip out and go full on fascist.

But until that day, FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOM

I've already been there.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Liberosia wrote:No, I'm saying capitalism is based on rights. You're strawmanning my argument.

So you finally brought out Nietzsche, great. Rational egoism is the logical conclusion of people who accept that man's fundamental moral premise is the achievement of happiness. Whether this is done by living in groups or owning a business does not matter: happiness is the biological mechanism that affirms life. Whilst one lives it is rational to pursue happiness.

Absolute freedom is the freedom from ethics. A longing for freedom from causality. Rights is the restraint of action. Okay, so I force someone not to kill me, I retaliate. Protection of RIGHTS is the fundamental of any laissez-faire system. Under whatever the hell anarchy or pseudo-voluntaryist society most alleged "anarchists" claim my rights would be violated.

I'm not...

Liberosia wrote:It's not my fault that the natural tendency of freedom is to capitalism.

There is no moral premise that is objective, or true for everyone. Thus, logical evaluation of you may lead to that conclusion, but for Zeouria's self-assessment, he might find altruism to be the conclusion. You are still basing this of the notion that morality is objective or everyone is adhering to some basic moral premise, which they aren't.

No. Perhaps I am misusing that specific term, but what I meant is maximum freedom is that rights are only restricted by other rights. The initiation of force is the violation of rights here, not self defense. It's not "hell anarchy", Sir Statist, or "psuedo-voluntaryism". Rather, it is you who forgets the basic voluntaryist principles that anything that is "voluntarily accepted" is ok, and anything is acceptable so long as it isn't forced onto those who don't want it. So, voluntaryism is, by definition economically fluid, because not everyone will live under capitalism voluntarily, and can voluntarily associate under other systems, without forcing you to.

The anarchists that are anti-capitalist have their own set of problems (My usual argument is saying "can't capitalists trade if they don't force you to trade?"), and you seem to think that they can just violate your rights in a voluntary society. No. But you can't violate theirs either, and they can live however the fvck they want to, under any economic system. To say anything contrary is anti-voluntaryist.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:Really?

I've never been a fascist nor ever considered it.

an old friend got me to consider it once bit I never turned.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:Really?

I've never been a fascist nor ever considered it.

I used to be kind of a plutocrat/imperialist. So, ehh...yeah....

Nst Anarchist Interregional 1St Division wrote:I'm not...

There is no moral premise that is objective, or true for everyone. Thus, logical evaluation of you may lead to that conclusion, but for Zeouria's self-assessment, he might find altruism to be the conclusion. You are still basing this of the notion that morality is objective or everyone is adhering to some basic moral premise, which they aren't.

No. Perhaps I am misusing that specific term, but what I meant is maximum freedom is that rights are only restricted by other rights. The initiation of force is the violation of rights here, not self defense. It's not "hell anarchy", Sir Statist, or "psuedo-voluntaryism". Rather, it is you who forgets the basic voluntaryist principles that anything that is "voluntarily accepted" is ok, and anything is acceptable so long as it isn't forced onto those who don't want it. So, voluntaryism is, by definition economically fluid, because not everyone will live under capitalism voluntarily, and can voluntarily associate under other systems, without forcing you to.

The anarchists that are anti-capitalist have their own set of problems (My usual argument is saying "can't capitalists trade if they don't force you to trade?"), and you seem to think that they can just violate your rights in a voluntary society. No. But you can't violate theirs either, and they can live however the fvck they want to, under any economic system. To say anything contrary is anti-voluntaryist.

I'll make this short: optionality does not equate to subjectivity, happiness is an objective moral purpose, an individual life is all that exists in this context (as an irreducible primary, that is the correct logical premise.)

Either this is a question of semantics, you are not understanding me, or I have not made myself clear enough. Either way, I affirm my positions: people can do whatever they want if they respect my right to life, my happiness is my only purpose, and I believe anarchy is a practical political philosophy to achieve my egoistic goals.

Up until their "system" begins violating my right to life and pursuit of happiness. You do realize most "left wing" anarchists aren't like you, right?

Zeouria wrote:NST:

Not Altruism, rather sharing and selfishness. These things benefit the individual in the end do to social yearnings to share/help back. It is extremely common, and has been employed for thousands upon thousands of years.

I affirm this as ethically consistent with the brand of egoism (objectivist) that I am espousing.

Articles? I'm a fan of "The Objectivist Ethics" in the book The Virtue of Selfishness. I also highly recommend Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I also like Aristotle and some of the scholastics.

Liberosia wrote:I used to be kind of a plutocrat/imperialist. So, ehh...yeah....

I'll make this short: optionality does not equate to subjectivity, happiness is an objective moral purpose, an individual life is all that exists in this context (as an irreducible primary, that is the correct logical premise.)

Either this is a question of semantics, you are not understanding me, or I have not made myself clear enough. Either way, I affirm my positions: people can do whatever they want if they respect my right to life, my happiness is my only purpose, and I believe anarchy is a practical political philosophy to achieve my egoistic goals.

Up until their "system" begins violating my right to life and pursuit of happiness. You do realize most "left wing" anarchists aren't like you, right?

Used to be?

I thought we all a Capitalists were Imperialist pigs.

Liberosia wrote:

Logic isn't really arbitrary.

Looks like I missed a good one, but this pretty much sums up what I've read.

Regarding IP, I find the concept laughably absurd. How anyone can claim to own a certain chain of thoughts and is beyond me.

The Amarican Empire wrote:I thought we all a Capitalists were Imperialist pigs.

Wellllllllllllll

The Amarican Empire wrote:Used to be?

Hey now all star

Tsar would you like to join cum?

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

I used to be a big government Republican. I used to be anti gay and all that bad stuff but I evolved.

Zeouria wrote:What...

The Change United Movement.

The Amarican Empire wrote:I used to be a big government Republican. I used to be anti gay and all that bad stuff but I evolved.

Soon, you shall evolve into the final form.

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Soon, you shall evolve into the final form.

What's that an Anarcho capitalist?

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Soon, you shall evolve into the final form.

BEHOLD

http://nintendo3dsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Slowbro-Mega.png

We need to do something about Black Nationalism. If a criminal reaches for an officers gun I consider that a three and firing would be self defense.

The Amarican Empire wrote:What's that an Anarcho capitalist?

Zeouria wrote:No, a giant mutant monster...

What's the difference really

Liberosia wrote:What's the difference really

Good point

Post by Zeouria suppressed by a moderator.

Zeouria wrote:Oooooooh!

That's irrational. The officer should have grabbed the gun and stepped back, and given a warning. And black nationalism?

I white or a Mexican kills a black and African Americans go on a riot. Looting and such. Blacks kill blacks or blacks kill whites and you hear almost nothing.

The Amarican Empire wrote:We need to do something about Black Nationalism. If a criminal reaches for an officers gun I consider that a three and firing would be self defense.

White nationalism is a bigger problem, imo.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.