FreedomPhilosophy
-
Posts
285 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by FreedomPhilosophy
-
So is it ok to aggress against the mentally ill because they cannot reciprocate re the NAP?As I stated, you cannot add contingent qualifiers to a moral imperative because the inverse logic would be equally valid and thus nullify any such assertion.
-
Bacteria and plants don't have a will and thus any self-determination or self-ownership. This is not true for higher organisms such as humans (and many farm animals) who posses all these qualities. Many non-human animals posses all the qualities of personhood, but they lack the degree of intelligence we have to make social contracts. But this is also true for infants and the mentally ill who we do not deem acceptable to kill to eat. From wiki Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
-
Any formulation of the kind 'only humans deserve moral consideration' because 'only humans have property X' are simply restating the first assertion in a different form of what defines human. It is circular logic and no better than a 'just so'.If the capacity for moral agency is the property X, that doesn't work because new born infants and the mentally impaired may not have moral agency, but they are presently treated as full humans.If one supposes that moral status is to be granted on the basis of a possible future outcome, then the inverse proposition also comes into effect. It is possible that I as a moral actor may be hit by a bus tomorrow and lose my moral faculty for the rest of my life, but could that be used to justify denying me my moral status? Any contingent added to a premise can be negated by the potential opposite possibility. I do not think philosophy and speculation sit together very well. There may be a scientific breakthrough tomorrow that could potentially make non-human animals smart enough to become moral actors.
-
To the Left on recycling
FreedomPhilosophy replied to LovePrevails's topic in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
I'm planning to do a program on public vs private waste disposal.One of the more interesting side issues is how a private system would tempt people to dump waste on other peoples property or in unowned places. I believe it follows that the cost of land ownership would rise due to the required policing and such a solution would also require privatization of any public space. -
Russell Brand hasn't voted and can see the corrupting of the system... his solution is "egalitarian socialism"... He's a popular celebrity in the UK, trending and well worth a Stef-stab? His article: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution
-
Conscription is a remnant of slavery and it's still going on in Western Europe.
-
Down and out: the French flee a nation in despair
FreedomPhilosophy posted a topic in Current Events
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/down-french-flee-nation-despair-070004223.html -
For logical consistency we must treat like cases alike.Many of the non-human animals reared and killed for human consumption are biologically close in terms of their traits. Darwin suggested that animals have emotional lives in "The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals". In many significant regards non-human animals express traits of person-hood and therefore should be treated like persons. Indeed many people do treat their companion animals just like people.Obviously there are many animals such as insects or jelly fish that do not have any traits of person-hood and therefore do not need to be treated as persons. This principle also works with marginal cases such as the unborn or brain dead that are other examples of beings lacking traits of person-hood.
-
The socialist dream crumbles in Venezuela
FreedomPhilosophy replied to Alan C.'s topic in Current Events
The communist utopia is imminent. -
In this prog a take a look at the many problems of the UK housing market, tracing it back to the Norman conquest.
-
Todays topic - stateless vs statist societies explained in less that 5 minutes using a real historical example!
-
With no doubt sky high prices, how many customers will they get? Just the few unfortunates, yes?
-
My understanding of what the TZM propose is that there will be no initiation of force, they want to pursued everyone to live their way voluntarily because they think it has the best outcome for the most people. They believe that there will be no requirement for trade with money or selling of labour because all conceivable material needs will be provided for by entirely automated systems. They will not ban money, they will eliminate the need for it. This social condition will clearly not work if there are any geographic locations (or other restrictive situations) where material needs from such systems cannot be provided for instantaneously. In such cases a think money will prove indispensable and thus I cannot conceive of it being entirely eliminated. Another problem is that I do not believe that computers will be able to provide all the crafted goods or human services that people can offer and again in such cases trade for money would persist. While artisans would be free to produce such goods without charge because all their basic needs would be met, they still might not produce enough to meet demand, and therefore a market providing some kind of incentive would still arise.Watch my video below for further critique of PJ.
-
I think it's very important to challenge the meaning creep that the left produce to condemn consequences rather than individual actions. I deal with this in my reply to PJs review of the debate with Stefan. Any service provided "in the middle of nowhere" will usually have to pay higher prices for it's consumables and will typically enjoy a lower level of custom, so it is perfectly reasonable that it charges prices higher than average. This is not monopolization.
-
Peter Joseph debate
FreedomPhilosophy replied to Rayne's topic in New Freedomain Content and Updates
Here's my critique of PJs review of the debate... -
"Almost all persons have aortic fatty streaks by age 10"
-
In this program I take a look at corporatism and how it co-opts and exploits left political policy for the betterment of the business elites.
-
There's lots of British comedy that I liked such as Dads Army, Black Adder, Monty Python and Little Britain. There did just seem to be a period where man bashing was in vogue generally against a backdrop of confident positive females.Of course I could just be taking comedy too seriously, but it seems like something is going on.
-
I did enjoy British comedy, but I don't think I could watch it anymore...
-
I know, Sweden isn't socialist, not unless you stretch the definition a little bit too far!
-
SOMALIA:Norway pays Somalia’s government salaries
FreedomPhilosophy posted a topic in Current Events
How generous! http://www.midnimo.com/2013/09/09/somalianorway-pays-somalias-government-salaries/ -
from Anarchism on Facebook Proudhon is noted as the originator of anarchist theory and was a socialist, however he defined anarchy as "order without power", but I'm not sure what he means by power. Because, the left anarchists think that capitalists have power. What say you? Is anarcho capitalism an oxymoron? I think the original left anarchist theorists like Proudhon were sophists, just as lefties are now. I'd like your thoughts on this as well http://youtu.be/WIvn8qjyrzk?t=9m43s
-
Government as a corporation
FreedomPhilosophy replied to Daly's topic in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
Please take a look at my program called Empire Law and the links below it on YouTube. I think I have answered a lot of the issues. -
In this program I explore how the forging of empires left a binary legal system with oppressive laws for the conquered peoples and immunity from prosecution for the conquerors. Does that sound familiar?
-
Is it natural for humans to make war?
FreedomPhilosophy replied to Wesley's topic in Libertarianism, Anarchism and Economics
Chimps are predators, humans are not - that's a big biological difference. Chimp "warfare" is territorial in nature and means that victors may get better provisioned. Mass human warfare is ideologically motivated although there are clearly material interests for the elite classes. Most animals that engage in intra-special conflict don't tend to kill their opponents. It's good enough just to see them off.