Tadas

I see that there are many unjustified haltered towards state. because of the laws of nature it is obvious that group of people is stronger stronger than single individual so 2 people who group together van easily enslave one free man. to protect his freedom that man is required to join n another group which has equal power to resist those who are trying to steal his property or take him into slavery. however it does not end here more violent groups with stronger motivation will easily defeat peaceful group which allows violent people to acquire exponentially more power all this ends with formation of state which is quite violent. people cant leave that state because they will be destroyed immediately so formation of state is inevitable. no how states can allow existence of anarchy: most recent form of state is republic. republic is when everyone has equal rights and responsibilities written in constitution. in result there is no need for government unless constitution is flawed and laws must be constantly adjusted if constitution is perfect government is just out of place because laws do not need to be changed ever. now important part is how to maintain that state, we can either be completely interchangeable and everyone of us perform as policeman doctor teacher as long as we have desire to do that work. we can chose to delegate our rights to some chosen people like if there are 100 people in neighborhood, we all delegate our right to some representative who now has do judgements in the name of everyone who gave him that right. you may disagree with his judgement but if you transferred him that right you lost it. other alternative would be not to delegate your rights but just hire someone to enforce constitution literally. that way we all can act like policemen and judge or even kill anyone we find necessary as long as we do not contradict constitution. if you murder someone by mistake you will be hunted as murderer yourself so all your judgement fall on your private responsibility. but in practice this version will not be chosen because if very high risk if constitution is ambiguous. you can easily misinterpret it and become criminal yourself. so we fall down to current version where citizens delegate their rights so some chosen people elected to protect their constitution while losing all these rights themselves but gaining rights that are described in constitution. act of voting is not for election, it is contract when you delegate your rights of choice to these whom you mark on that paper. So if you voted you have no right to complain about their decision because you signed contract of delegating your rights of state management to these people. Anonymous voting removes all responsibility from your choices what is core evil of state merely changing voting to named would instantly fix most of the problems because voter will be accountable for all their choices. national debt will be extorted from those who chose government which created it, every failure will have people who are responsible directly and must repay for all damage.

Yes I red that article and listened to many of his videos and all that look quite utopical without any connection to reality. We van examine this principle as some abstract framework but it is far from reality because of some reasons that make my receive bad feedback when i mention them people seem to prefer closing eyes and just ignoring reality and expecting that everything will go as they want against the laws of nature. I disagree with that. i do not care if someone was killed by lion or human this is equally evil and thus lion is evil machine which must be destroyed just as human murderer is evil machine which does the on purpose. not because it did something evil but because it is device designed to produce evil. problem with that claims is why do you even try to use this capacity as deciding factor does it make difference if someone is capable of high level intelligence not not? this is simply discrimination according to intelligence levels assuming that those tho are smarter are superior people who deserve more rights. yes this was the case as human definition gets new members all time. I expect that soon we may declare dolphins as humans or who knows what in future, maybe some scientist will find that rats are capable of moral thinking. and we are talking not about biological human definition but about beings to whom your moral principles apply. even if I feel bad about abusing animal or humans I understand that this is my private emotion and I have no right to enforce it on anyone else just as i said earlier, it does not matter who initiated certain action that thing is responsible if it did it on its own will. if there is a machine designed for destruction it must be eliminated as practical measure and if this is something useful it must be protected and loved. if someone on purpose burns forest or kills my beloved dog he deserves same fate as murdering human being Actually i believe that state is absolute requirement to maintain any sensible level of anarchy. without state we will immediately fall into slavery which will require insane effort to escape So, Stefan is absolutely wrong in that regard state does not require inequality, because every citizen can be interchangeable as if I can put police uniform and become policeman or doctor if i have knowledge required and act as if i am representative of state state is not absolute evil, it must just be well designed to optimize our happiness or whatever we desire. which article? everyone with irrational belief will equally say that your belief is irrational, especially if you do not have any better criteria Entire statement that your belief is rational is just same discrimination and dehumanization as you see those other beings as inferior, who need to be taught of correct way of life.

This situation would be quite sad but at same time it actually provides freedom do do whatever you want If my death is near my actions do not impose any penalties anymore I can borrow money spend it in a way i want even disregard social norms in other words I can become psychopath whose only reason of life is to destroy yourself sooner than nature will do it. however my biggest concern would be feelings of my family. even if my private prospect of death is not so scary, seeing loved people suffering is worst thing here.

In my opinion rational action is which is logically supposed to create desired result. as If I want to break glass I smash it. I smash my watch with hammer in attempt to fix it while I know hat it will not work it will be irrational. I think irrational actions are done to pace yourself and other people as you have urge to fix some problem but you do not have solution, so you just do anything and say that you made your attempt. Society usually do not care about results as it cares about intent. so if you can show your good intent you get approval independently of results

I will not say it will be "fine" I would be really pissed of if someone damaged my body similar to how I would be pissed of if someone burns down my local park. or if someone takes my parking lot which I was planing to use. Jut because you can do something it does not mean you are allowed to do that. and list of what we are allowed to do is separate thing not related to any ownership rights.

I have no frustrations, no problems except that I would label myself as covert schizoid personality. as I do not have any specific respect for humans I see everyone as equal no matter if it is amoeba human or even state. and I will threat everything in exactly same way according to Wikipedia schizoid people usually do not accept any hierarchy in life it is all absolutely flat. and thus my thinking may be incompatible with most who have hierarchy of values intrinsically beveling that for example human is more valuable than dog. I think that giving exclusive rights to humans because of some non universal traits is against logic. and it is same as limiting these rights to specific individuals. this is standard procedure in humans life when we define people close to us as Us and everyone else as evil Them and so our morality does not apply to them. Will be paid to kill my enemies just because they are born on other land while i will go to jail if I kill someone from this land. In result everything starts from dehumanization, you just exclude your target from human concept and then you do whatever you want or in reverse if someone manages to get human label he obtains all rights he was lacking before, like black people who were regarded non human got their right by famous speech which claim that black people are also human. If such loophole is open why even bother with declaring any morality principles? what is meaning of all that mental acrobatic? just do whatever you want and stop lying to yourself and everyone.

lest ignore that brutality because it is just for sake of displaying absurdity of ownership. instead of cutting my toddlers heads I can just indoctrinate them with some stupid religion which demands them to blow up themselves in the bus full of another humans beings. What permission? Other people are simply incapable to control my body, they have as much chance to do is as you can steal sun from the sky. of course they can try to use my body as some raw material but it has very little value and if they try i will resist and do great damage if other people want to use my body most efficient way is to ask me politely. But of course don't forget that we are living in real word with some social norms so even if I do not agree with certain rules I must obey them. If you were living is society where slavery is legal you will own several slaves even you think it is wrong. I think we can deal with rape without ownership rights. just as if someone burns forest we do not need to be owners of that forest to punish such man.

We are talking about laws and rules that restrict my freedom so basically I must have enough justification to obey them. If you make "demand do not kill" my natural question what I get for that. and if we write contract "do not kill humans in exchange for something" i will see how broadly this demand applies and how much I can do without violating my contract. life is a game where morality is your game rules and your goal is to win. and winner is one who manages to walk on the very edge of the rules without falling down.

I can not really control my hair or nails either yes, i can clip them but in same way i probably can clip my children heads or dump them into trash can as i dump my feces or other body waste. I am not saying that I am going to do that. I just talk about principle that if I can clip my hair cells and trash them what makes it different from doing same with newborn baby? another way to say this, would I be allowed to do this: I clone myself and use my clone as my slave? only difference between us who pushed cloning button everything else is same Who is replying? I am. Jut because I don't own exclusive rights to my body it does not mean I don't own any rights, I can use my body however i can just like everyone else can use my body in any way they can.

In my opinion this UPB is designed as apologetic excuse to justify current beliefs as: i think that murder is wrong however in certain situation murder is ok so we create some theory which will explain why it is so and it can be used for indoctrination of other people so the whole idea is how to swap from Descriptive to Prescriptive without being noticed Morality in all sense is rules of interaction between different persons who are seeking private goals. so naturally we should start by defining these goals checking their compatibility and creating most efficient model to fulfill them what will always force tradeoffs as in every design.

It depends in which way we see it it can be definition obtained from observation as if I define that 5=2+2 it s not wrong math it is just that i define symbol 5 as 2+2 so if I say there are no absolutes it can be understood as axiomatic definition which is right by definition. and if I say that as conclusion or derivative from another logic, it is definitely wrong

1 Children are my property because they are product of my body, just like hair or nails. I am allowed to take any of my cells and grow anything like from them if you exclude them from property you basically deny my rights to my body as it means that I don't own my cells. and thus entire concept of property falls down. 2 I am not forcing anyone anything, but within some time people will be forced to pay me for using my land because they will have no other option. just as if you are in the middle of the ocean you are forced to accept my conditions for saving you or just drown. and actually i do not believe in property just in liberty because property is unnecessary concept so I created this post with my liberty only. this post is not my property anyone can do whatever he wants with it i do not have any exclusive rights to anything including my body neither anyone has.

I think it need clarification. If it is just interfering with your usage rights then I am allowed to use your car while you do not use it. all i have to do is not to prevent you from using it when you need it and do not damage. it could be extended to the rape as if woman is drunk or sleeping she is not using her body right now and thus I can borrow it temporarily.

Ok, so assume that I genetically manipulate humans being to be incapable to have children with other humans beings (or merely make it infetrile) does that mean it is another species? and if is genetically manipulate pig to be capable to get pregnant from human does this also turn that pig into human? all of that follows from your biological definition which is valid for natural world where no such tings happen but here we are talking about rules of the game where goals is to win at all cost so if i find that i can find a loophole i will do all i can to exploit it for personal gain. and if we are talking about real science you cant use argument "no biologist" because this assumes that biologists have some exclusive rights to make definitions if that is valid I can just get biologist label and define my own definition which you are forced to obey just because there is no dog capable of moral thinking found yet it does not mean all dogs must be denied of human rights. this is quite same as if all jews whom i met were thieves then all whom i will meet in future will be same. it has nothing to do with responsibility, you are using supposed lack of moral thinking as your right of ownership. like if dog is unable of moral thinking i have right to own it. and by fact of ownership you actually deny him ability to prove moral thinking ability because you are responsible for all actions.

In fact they will get pretty far with that. most people will really volunteer to pay taxes. however there sill be one problem If there is neighborhood of 10 people and we think that it would be good idea to build a new road we all could use but you decide that you are going to opt out because you can use old road just as it is. so how to deal with that? if they will build a road you will get to use it for free anyway. nobody can prevent you from using it they may say what the heck lets build it anyway we still have 9 people who want it. but in that case I will be also smart and claim that I don't need that road either so i wont pay and still enjoy results in result we get free ride while other idiots do all job you can avoid taxes if you completely reject concept of public property that way you just pays taxes to the owners of specific roads land etc as much as they demand you. so taxes dont go anywhere. or if we alocate some unowned property we can partially fix some problems but nobody will maintain that properety so you cant expect usable road which is just empty land allocated for walking or driving.