powder

property rights are objective, moral behavior is based on property rights (violations thereof). can you refute that axiom? you keep asking how can we know that the moral tenet is the right one and it is because of the validity of property rights, this has been stated.

Huh? moral truths are universal, so you can objectively judge some moral claims as not being valid because they are not universal,... like you said, cuz it's not universal. sure, if you arrive at 2+2=4, it doesn't matter what formula you use. If you don't then we can certainly say that the methodology is flawed. If you have a moral/system system that says it is OK to use someone else property without their consent, your 'axiom' is wrong, not sustainable, not universal.

yes it is immoral to harvest the organs of the healthy man against his will. not sure I understand your point here. prison is immoral because it is against the wishes of the criminal being imprisoned? It is against the will of the rapist for the person being assaulted to fight back.

I am not seeing the point of classifying behavior that is not immoral as moral, like lending you my kite. it has something to do with the idea about there being the necessity for moral consideration (property rights), which you term as 'binding' - is that right? So me flying the kite, which is not 'binding' on anyone else since it does not involve anyone else's property rights, is amoral. as soon as my kite behavior involves an interaction with someone else and property rights (lending, selling) it becomes 'binding' and then is subject to moral consideration. have I got that right?

I am not interested in the 'semantic anarchists definitions' but what could possibly be contradictory about voluntary interactions between people, we live our lives everyday that way.

welcome to the forum thales. Can you list a couple of key points that were misrepresented or not understood and explain why that is the case?

I was of the impression that behavior could be either immoral, or not immoral, but not moral per se. Like rape is immoral but consensual sex is not moral behavior, in the same way that agreeing to sell my kite to you is not moral. I understand that actions can show integrity, courage, honesty and other virtues but that does not make them moral. Do you mean that the behavior is subject to moral evaluation because it is binding?

I am not getting this. If I am flying a kite, this behavior is not binding on another person and it is amoral. If I take someone else's kite without consent (stealing), it is binding on another person and violating their property rights, so it is immoral. So what kind of kite transaction or behavior would be considered moral?

what would the 'philosophical' definition of virtue(s) be?

well done Yagami!

good luck with your idea, yes, I do know about those families, esp the Medici.

first I've heard of it. I looked at it online, looks very slick.

about?

I am not sure what is going on here anymore. Anoujat, the last question you asked says it all. You either really have no clue what has been said, or you are on about something that you are not being honest about. In any case, I am done, good luck.

good metaphor Nathan

I do agree that it is good reading and an incredible eye opener. Lately I have been reading about how the Venetian oligarchs started the protestant reformation and controlled both sides of the war to further their hegemony agenda. controlled opposition, brilliant plan, cost the lives of millions. there are lots of them out there if you like learning about this stuff. I have got lots of blank stares when I would introduce people to some remarkable facts about events in history that go against the mainstream narrative. I find it more effective to bring it down to the personal level of everyday life and relationships, where people can really relate - like the 'against me' kind of stuff. What test did the 'mean, motive, opportunity' formula pass? how are all these people who are convinced of the truth and implications of a story like this going to go about "bringing down the whole motherfucking establishment?" Put them on trial perhaps in the oligarchs own court system? Shoot them all and make an example of them so that other psychopaths will think twice before trying some evil stunt like that again? You cannot fight the monster, you can only starve it to death. You cannot fight evil, you can only turn away from it.

I understand your position philbert, I spent many and hour reading and learning about the hidden adendas of the ruling elite. the Yamashita gold story is a compelling one for sure. the assumption that if people only knew the truth they it would bring down the oligarchs evil house of cards is just not the case. People knew that communism in Russia was responsible for millions of deaths, they received it with open arms in china and millions more were slaughtered. everyone knew the war in iraq was a lie, how did that help stop the carnage? there are countless examples of history repeating itself after the truth has been revealed. people need principles, not information and facts. give a person, or group, the authority and legal right to steal, murder, and create/control a nation's money and all manner of evil will flow from that delusion. like dsayers says, revealing the truth behind the gold cover up, like all the other conspiracies, is like a giving a parking ticket to a mass murderer.

I think the state is a manifestation of our psyche, it exists because people want it to, because they believe it is necessary and good. If children are raised by adults that abuse, coerce and manipulate them with fear and violence then those children will grow up and internalize the notion that coercion is a valid form of human interaction, they will be very prone to bow to authority without question. so yes, I think a stateless society full of frightened angry manipulators would not be sustainable.

Property rights have been explained, accepted by you and your friend, clearly not. How is being 'responsible' for murder and "owning" the effects of your actions (murder) different? Consent is necessarily connected to the understanding of property rights. Taking 'ownership' of someone else's property; their body thru assault, rape, their time and productivity thru stealing things that they have acquired thru the effects of their actions... is immoral. This is universal and not subjective or subject to social contracts of any kind. Your friend is full of prunes if he says he would be annoyed and complains if someone took his phone and still believes that there is nothing wrong with that. That is not honest. If he does think it is perfectly OK to use other peoples stuff without their consent then I would expect that he would have no problem taking money and resources from others at will to satisfy his needs and desires. It is inconsistent, so cannot be true.

If you take your chair and go to an outdoor concert and plunk in down in front of the stage beside all the other chairs and towels on the ground, or put a towel on the beach, or your coat over a chair at a banquet, you will find that people instinctively and automatically respect your right to that property, even if only temporarily. the towel, chair and jacket, they will respect as your property and consider it theft if anyone were to try to take them. Ethics is simple to me because it seems so automatic and intuitive to us, even as toddlers, everyone gets it. that is, until the political pundits get involved and start with the propaganda and euphemisms related to property rights, words and phrases like 'the greater good' and 'taxation' (theft), and so on. If you accept that we own our bodies then we are necessarily responsible (have ownership) for the effects of our actions and we own our time and labor and the effects thereof as well. If I cut down a tree and make a chair out of it, its mine. can you give an example that shows how he thinks there might be an exception to that?

didn't watch the vid, but my response to the question is simply: "why not the same people who build them now?" the government doesn't build roads or bridges, or do anything productive for that matter.

I would just like to add that, as usual, I think dsayers did a much better job than I did in his last post of responding to these issues. I hope this stuff helps you with your desire to sort this out.

OK, I'll bite. evil is the initiation of force and violating property rights - assault, theft, rape... how do you define 'dominance' and 'exploitation'? how do Acom's plan to re-distribute this capital? why are people entitled to anything, esp other people's resources? what is wrong with people working hard to acquire more resources, success, responsibility, opportunity? If that puts them in a position of hierarchy in relation to other people involved in the same business or endeavor, how is that immoral if all interactions are voluntary?

I think you are conflating 'believing' in something with truth. a communist can say or believe whatever they want, they are simply wrong when it comes to understanding property rights, as Gavitor exemplified with his question above.

I don't find it strange that your siblings were visibly upset by your fathers abusive, bullying behavior. It upset the heck out of you as well and its certainly a very good reason to want to find a better 'dad'. I think that answers Josh query. I had a father who did the same kind of thing to us. I don't know what 'inner strength' is but I learned to 'suck it up' or suck it in as well and come off as stoic and tough, and I don't call that strength anymore. I would guess that your relationship with your father helped you develop your capacity for forgiveness as you describe it as well.