Ancient Mariner

What if he is wrong and the real good is not the Christian god? He cannot really hedge. He has to choose a god and "if he is wrong and the Muslim god is the one waiting for him after he is dead" then what? I think you are correct when you say that sometimes it is better to engage the emotional side of the religious person. You can also ask your brothers why is the god concept so important to them and the follow that thread.

Let me put it this way: When you become an adult you are bound by UPB going forward. If at any point in time you are not capable of using your muscles, you do not stop being responsible (this is what we call Universality – everyone, all the time).If you broke someone’s window a week ago, you are still responsible even if you went into a comma yesterday. You are still responsible even while you were sleeping the day after you broke the window. You are still responsible even if you did it to save your life because you were hanging from a flag pole. That is exactly right. The man in a coma or the sleeping man is still responsible and UPB bound. And this is precisely why they are good for “quick tests” of universality. If you kill someone’s dog, burn someone’s house or kill someone’s children; you are doing evil. There is no difference here between any of them. From a UPB stand point you are still unethical. If you kill some random animal in the woods you are not doing evil. And you've got to admit that there are no low IQ people wandering in the woods living by themselves for years.A different matter is the implementation of a legal system. How a court will handle each of these cases is a jurisprudence issue, the ethical question is clear. I think we already covered who qualifies as a moral agent in my first post: A child does not have the capacity for argumentation, but he is someone’s child. A low IQ person does not have the capacity for argumentation, but he is someone’s relative. In other words, while the conceptual UPB framework accepts that some humans are not UPB bound, in the real world, a legal system will handle those cases as best as possible. If anything, your concern should be with the implementation of a legal system, not with UPB.

Wow! My head is blown! First, you just mentally transported me back to my late teen years. I am literally listening to the Americana album as I write this (which I have not listened to in probably a decade) Apart from "The Kids Aren't Alright", I forgot there were other songs i really liked. Man, i wonder what I will dream tonight. Second, those lyrics tell so much truth. The offspring was a pretty mainstream band. Heck, I knew of them when i was back in Latin America in the 90s. So, I wonder how conscious most people really are of the "photocopier of history". Everybody talks about parents being heroes for putting up with misbehaving kids when in reality it is the parents themselves creating those behaviors in their own kids.

Well, I addressed the questions you directed towards me. You have two consecutive post responses talking about guardians. In fact your entire previous post was about legal guardians. Can we at least acknowledge that the “guardians-question” is about the implementation of a legal system and not related to UPB framework? Now, regarding the content of your latest post, “the coma test” is just a way to reference the principle of “avoidability”. In fact, the man in a coma is not really special and has no special “weight”. A sleeping man does just fine: In “gray areas” cases it is very difficult to objectively define a cutoff point at which every child “transforms” into an adult and it is equally difficult to know what exact IQ level excuses you from responsibility. The principle of avoidability is different from them in the sense that a man could very well have the capacity to know he is about to be unethical but he has no choice because of the circumstances. The coma test is just a quick and easy way to reference the fact rules that posit positive actions as UPB are not valid because it is not possible to comply with them all the time. If you don’t want to use a man in a coma, that’s fine: Use a sleeping man.

Ok. I think I understand where you are coming from. There a couple of meanings to enforcing UPB: 1. The first use is a way to describe what ethics is In this sense, enforcement does not refer to how a court might handle cases where a child or low IQ person is involved. Enforcement, in this sense, refers to the fact that some behaviors are inflicted on others and those behaviors are part of ethics. 2. The application/implementation of UPB through a legal system If two people come to a court voluntarily and/or contractually to resolve a dispute, there is no initiation-of-violence involved. The court might sentence a financial penalty to be paid from one party to the other but since the parties already agreed to obey by the court ruling then they are contractually bound to obey it. In this sense, enforcement is about the details of the legal system. Your idea of guardianship is interesting but we have to be clear that it doesn’t say anything about the conceptual UPB framework, instead it is about an implementation of a legal system. To put it in a simple sentence: Jurisprudence does not equal ethics.

Concepts are imperfectly derived from reality and thus their application has some gray areas. Mathematics, which is derived from the behavior of the world around us, sometimes has funny edge cases. For instance: Division by Zero. Since you cannot divide a number by zero, is division and mathematics invalid? Let's say I ask you, can you go to the next room and divide this pizza pie (eight slices) equally among my four visitors. And, when you get there, you notice that they are all gone. Then, do you say "oh I cannot divide this therefore mathematics is incorrect"? This is a quote from the book: You can check the "THE GRAY AREAS" section on page 77 in the book for a full discussion. I think it is important to differentiate the conceptual framework from the application of the framework.

Universality applies to all members of the same class. Now, it might seem that creating a "human class" is arbitrary but it is not. A class is made up of all the entities that share the same essence. In the case of UPB, all humans accept the foundations of UPB (implicitly or explicitly) when they engage in argumentation. A rock cannot engage in argumentation and thus it cannot be part of the class of entities that are bound by UPB. Like in science, classes are not made up arbitrarily. For instance, in chemistry, if you discover that Gold reacts in a certain way under certain conditions to another element then you cannot arbitrarily do the following: 1. You cannot say that some Gold atoms are exceptions to your rule 2. You cannot say "oh well now this theory must apply to all chemical elements, not just Gold" In other words, you cannot arbitrarily add or remove entities to your class. Let me know if this was helpful.

Have you already looked into the Free State Project in New Hampshire? If so, do you have any criticism of it?

It is amazing how people defend the state unconsciously. In the scenario presented by the OP: Mary is the state. The motherland. The rapist who takes care of the sick. John represents young citizens. He is appropriately Mary’s step son. John didn't choose to be there. He was born or taken into the marriage without choice (social contract). He is abused by the mother(land) Brandy represents the sick and the poor. And, of course, as stated in the OP's last paragraph is the recipient of all the wonderful behavior of the mother(land). Eric represents the market. He represents people who work. And, you see, the market cannot take care of the poor/sick. The unconscious analogy becomes very clear when the OP asks the question "what do you do?" This is the typical argument by statists that point out that "without the state, who would take care of the sick?!" The sick thing about this is that it is all framed inside a dicussion of ethics.

Marty Friedman used to play for Megadeth during the 90s. During that time, one of his solo projects was released in 1992 under the title Scenes. It is an instrumental album filled with plenty of beautiful guitar-led melodies with a very evident Japanese/Far East flavor (especially the first 20 minutes of the album) For me, it has a melancholic and introspective sound. It makes me feel very vulnerable and transparent at times, as if my emotions were being show on stage for everyone to see. Also, at times, the songs reach a climax where all the emotions being expressed seem to be so immense that they explode and almost materialize (and sometimes they do, in the form of tears) Tracklist: 0:00 - Tibet 2:35 - Angel 6:14 - Valley of Eternity 14:28 - Night 21:07 - Realm of the Senses 26:49 - West 32:24 - Trance 34:20 - Triumph

Are there any alternatives to pepper spray for personal safety? Even if he is able to gain a monopoly on pepper spray, it would only be as effective as the price of its alternatives. Are guns illegal in the country where he has the pepper spray monopoly? I understand guns are lethal (as opposed to pepper spray) but it is still an alternative for personal safety and it might be even more effective for security purposes in some central american cities.

The Kids Aren't Alright song is very especial to me. I used to love some of The Offsping's songs during my last years of high school but i never really paid attention to their lyrics. I bumped into the video by chance (or by the grace of YouTube's suggestions algorithm) a few weeks ago. After watching the video and reading the lyrics, I was so emotionally connected with it again. I've tried to understand why my unconscious is drawn to it. The song is a general description of how kids, whose lifes apparently started with a lot of hope, end up with horrific adult lifes. Now, my adult life is actually for the most part stable and I was lucky enough to dodge a lot of bullets (horrible ex-gfs, no substance abuse, etc) So, I think what I am actually attracted to is that the video illustrates my emotions as I look at how my relationships have turned out. In it, a skinny young man walks into a room that seems abandoned (I assume it is his former home) and has flashbacks of his friends and family when they were young and as they grow up. I was emotionally neglected as a child and emotionally abandoned by my parents since my late teens. When I was a kid, my family was sort of a role model family. Financially successful father, stay home "caring" mother, etc. Thus there were high expectations when I was young. Later, when I hit my early 20s, I started to realize that it was all a facade and that in reality there was no real family intimacy. The empty abandoned room is a graphical representation of my family life. The skinny young man walking into it represents me processing and realizing how empty it really was. The flashbacks of the family are reminders of the false image that my family portrayed to the outer world. The flashbacks of the kids growing up represent the various addictions that I've battled throughout the years. The people standing in the middle of the room towards the end of the song with theirs mouths wide open screaming represent my inner self screaming out in anger, frustration and the desire to be allowed to express what I truly feel.

I find it disturbing that the woman caller compared herself against the lowest type of parent to make herself look good. I bet that she will have much higher standards for her own children when they start attending elementary/high school. When/if one of her children comes home with a bad mark, could you image her saying "oh well since my kid is not a drug addict failing every single grade then he must be a good student"

Thanks for replying and I'm sorry you went through such abuse with your parents. In my case, the visible abuse started with my uncle and that I allowed me to "wake up". I don't know If I would have had the courage to confront my demons if it was my father who did the things my uncle did. There a few of reasons I resorted to passive-aggressive vengeance against my uncle instead of direct criticism: 1. He would have kicked me out of his house even earlier than he eventually did. I didn't want to risk my college degree. I didn't know if I could have afforded to pay for an apartment and college at the same time. Plus, back then I was under a "student visa" so I really needed to stay in college or I would have lost my visa. 2. I didn't want to get my parents involved. At the time, in my head, i had the narrative that "I didn't want to start a family fight". In retrospect, I feel that I really didn't want to start looking at my parents as the source of my problems. I didn't understand that they failed to protect me and sent me to live with a monster. Even after I moved out of my uncle's house and my parents divorced, it took me a few years to connect the dots. 3. I really wanted revenge against my uncle. I have anger against my parents when I analyze my early childhood life or when I confront my mother and she gets defensive and evasive. However, that anger exhausts me and it ends up transforming into grief and sadness. On the other hand, the anger that I feel against my uncle is somehow much more visceral and enraging. I don't know if it is because what I went through with him is clearer in my head (since i have clearer memories of it) or it is a way for my mind to shift the focus away from my parents. I was very conscious of my passive-aggression at the time. However, for a long time, I felt very guilty for feeling it. I come from a Catholic background so feeling anger towards relatives always had negative connotations. In some ways I still doubt my actions as you can see from my post. Fortunately, I have learned to empathize with my emotions so I don't criticize myself for feeling what I feel. I know that I can't change anyone. I've learned that through the discussions with my mother. Thanks for asking good questions and letting me to put into words what I've felt for a long time. I feel that as I keep writing and verbalizing my emotions I will learn to be at peace with my decision. That's definitely a better word for it. I will take a look at that link. Thanks a lot for your time!

Lians, I don't want to hijack this thread so I am posting my response to you comments in the following link as a new topic. I watched the Trial and Death of Socrates today. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38254-ethics-and-a-philosophers-revenge/

Thanks for linking that video series. I watched it for the first time a couple of years ago but it is always refreshing to review insightful material every once in a while. So, I watched it again today. First, and to be more precise, the roots of my initial attraction to ethics are twofold: 1. I was very compliant with my mother's world view when I was a child. I "loved" when she praised me for being such a good son. I wanted the same praise and validation from society; especially since I didn't develop good conflict resolution skills and I didn't know how to manage criticism at an emotional level. 2. I was raised in a verbally abusive environment. I would get shamed by my father or mother for not answering their questions (even when the questions were rhetorical) My obsession with certainty - especially ethics - was precisely so that I could be admired and praised for knowing the truth. I hate being wrong in public (especially when it comes to important topics) Sometimes I blush when i say something that is not correct or make silly mistakes. Second, while watching the Trial and Death of Socrates series it reminded me of a few things I went trough during my teenage years. After high school, I moved in with my uncle in NJ while attending college. He was a complete mess. His methods of psychological abuse were even more sophisticated and brutal than my parent's. It ranged from the "mild" everyday passive-aggressive snarky comments, all the way to taking me, without my consent, to see prostitutes at the age of 16 and harassing me to find a brothel near the school i was attending. My uncle had a rule that "my bathroom" should be cleaned once a week. It had to be so clean that even if you wipe the toilet or the sink with a white glove, no dust would show up. In that environment, I shut down my emotions even further. In retaliation, I planned to kill his soul. I knew that every time he insulted me for being "dirty and spoiled" he was killing his capacity for good. When Socrates says in Part 3 of the series at 20:06 "If you kill such a one as I am, you would have injured yourselves more than you have injured me" I am reminded of myself at age 16. I consciously decided not to clean the bathroom as my uncle wanted and thus I was metaphorically handing him a whip for him to beat me unjustly and thus destroying his soul. During my first college semester and after my first philosophy class, I asked for his opinion on what the professor said. He looked at me with an angry face as if he was telling me "You stupid idiot. Why do you worry about such things?" and he changed the topic. He continued his snarky comments and passive-aggression for the remainder of my stay with him (which was 4 years). Now, I've always considered myself a very smart and rational person. And, after realizing that I was fighting a losing battle, I decided to withdraw my brain from my uncle's life. I stopped making comments and responses to whatever he would say. Whenever he would make a stupid argument I would always say that he was correct. To this day I am not sure if that was the right attitude. I knew that by withdrawing my feedback I was enabling his corruption to continue. I also knew that my cousins (which at the time were 1, 3 and 6 y/o) were going to suffer just as I did. With all that information I still decided to stay quiet. In Part 6 of the series at 15:13 Stef says that "when the good are being mauled by the evil, they look at the majority for help and protection. If they are ignored, then they elevate the evil into mastery of the majority". I feel that I consciously did this to my cousins. Since no one came to my protection I allowed my uncle to stay as he was - without any criticism from my part. My obsession with ethics and certainty in general incremented exponentially during my stay at my uncle's house. My parents had broken my emotional legs and rendered me susceptible to my uncle who did all those things "for my own good". After all, I had to become a "real man" by visiting prostitutes and of course: What's wrong with having a clean bathroom?

This is a quote from an anthropology book that I read a few months ago. It's attributed to a person living in a Greenland tribe. I believe Levi Strauss has a similar saying: In my experience, you need to very careful when someone wants to do something for you "unselflessly". One of my uncles and my parents agreed to send me to live with him while I was going to college. My uncle ended up wanting to mold me after his own twisted and sick view of the world. I refused it implicitly by only coming back to his house to sleep. Until I stopped talking to him I never stopped hearing complains on how ungrateful I was. You can see another reference to it in the series "House of Cards" in Netflix. Kevin Spacey's character helps Corey Stoll's character to get out of a compromising situation. Since that point onwards Spacey owned Corey.

If the attacker botnet is utilized to generate new bitcoins then nothing is undermined. Inflation will not occur since the Bitcoin protocol is designed in such a way that new bitcoins are created at a fixed rate. The biggest risk is defrauding people through a double spend attack. And I guess if someone really wanted to bring the system down they would try to append blocks in the chain that contain completely arbitrary and random transactions. When this is discovered I would imagine the block chain could be just rolled back to the previous uncompromised block. I believe something similar happened some time ago when a large account was hacked and performed random valid transactions. I would imagine that hackers are on the side of bitcoin (and against the establishment) and I don't know how bankers and/or governments can infiltrate as honest nodes without creating malware. However, I don't know too much about the hackers community or if hackers in the payroll of governments are effective enough to it. Also, I don't know how stable the number of computers in a botnet is. I would imagine the computers with large processing power belong to gamers which would notice a decrease in performance and remove malware soon after.

From the Bitcoin whitepaper (which you can find here: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

That is very interesting metaphor. I used to suffer from very similar issues described by memeverse and to a much lesser degree I still do but I no longer spend hours a day inside my head revising every fundamental philosophical argument. I was especially attracted to ethics. In fact, I would say that the reason I was attracted to FDR is because of Stef's argument that philosophy can be built from the ground up (i.e. from first principles) At first I thought of it as a strength but it started to consume my life. The need for certainty was overwhelming. After some evaluation of my childhood history I realized that I had tremendous pressure from my family to "succeed" and I was raised in a very punitive environment (with shaming and other forms of verbal abuse) Since I started focusing on my relationship with my parents and other relatives I have grown more comfortable with uncertainty. Also, my grandiose ideas started to fade away. A few weeks ago I heard someone on the radio say that she still has the need for certainty because of her Catholic upbringing. My first thoughts were related to the usual questions "Who created the universe?" and such. I never thought that there could be a much more fundamental damage done that would cause the obsessive desire for certainty.

I have a love/hate relationship with video games. If there is something that can get the firefighters in my head to go wild is them. I recently came out of a month long period where League of Legends was in my head 24/7. I have stopped playing it regularly for some time now. And since the start of Season 4 i went back to play it a couple of times and I didn't feel that urge to play it constantly anymore. Sometimes, I feel that the desire to play games online is to actually talk to people in some way or another. I've observed myself in the past 2 years (since I bought my XBox) that whenever i feel alone i go online and look for human contact but I am not 100% sure why that impulse to play games is not present in me all the time. I would be interested in participating in a FDR video game community but I would have to be careful not to get dragged into playing games just to keep my mind busy.

I gradually lost contact with my college friends over the years. None of them were interested in self growth. They were more interested in going out on weekends to get wasted. It is very difficult to relate to people who have grown apart from you. I have lost some social skills in the process and there are times where I miss having people around me. However, anytime I feel down i remember the times i tried going back to talk to my college friends and how bored, empty and fake i felt around them. And, yes, there is always George Carlin to remind me: And I am not even looking for people who are necessarily libertarians or anarchists. I just want people who are empathetic and truthful. It has been a several months since i stopped looking. So, in my case, certainly, it is not because of my libertarian ideals, but because i have somewhat given up. Also, since I started taking my emotions more seriously (and doing journaling, dreams analysis and taking to my family about my childhood) I have gone and hide in my own cocoon and I tend to stay there for long periods of time and I only come back to the surface once in a while.

I used to live in Montclair back in 2011/2012. I am back in Union County now, still somewhat close to 07003.