Patrick Stephen Mangan

Along with what @itsmassive said, just = fair, an equal level of response and reaction, or ^retribution. Most historical definitions of justice have not actually been just at all, I think because they've been derived from the idea of breaking with perfection, or the dictates of a perfect and "righteous" god or state. And that if you break with perfection from what is "righteous/good," then it would be justice that any and all evil be done to you, which isn't actually just or equal at all. Rational justice would be more like a mathematical equation, or balancing a scale. To answer the question in the subject line, I think that objective/rational equal reaction justice is universal, and justice based on abstracts that do not exist based on empirical logic and evidence is cultural.

I pretty much agree, and it's kind of what I'm addressing here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40487-succinctpracticle-upbdo-unto-others/. Let me know what you think?

I think it can encompass aggression generally, and it's all relative to the level/severity of aggression, how unjust it is, and how long it goes on for without being responded to/without the other person escaping, or having the ability to escape, I.e. Children with their parents. You're probably right, but neither would you put up with someone being a jerk to you for long periods of time without trying to put a stop to it/escaping it some how. Assertiveness can by the same level of "aggression" and therefore justified. If you choose to remain just a victim, then I think you are letting yourself be psychologically damaged. However, if you respond with a higher level of aggression (I.e. Physical aggression) then you're escalating the situation, and your aggression is not justified, breaking UPB and causing psychological damage in the other direction, as the dominator. I would think that the more unjust you are compared to the other person, the more of a mental contradiction it is, and the more psychological damage it causes. I don't know if this topic belongs here in the philosophy forum, or in the psychology forum, lol. I think a generally good goal to have would be to match other people's level of "aggression" as close as possible, and to use your best judgement, for your own protection and for other people's protection (i.e. If you think domestic violence is happening near by), and for everyone's psychological health and prosperity, and as close to real time as we can, so that we/the society we create doesn't dominate others with vengeful punishment long after their aggressive actions.

I think I've modified my original idea slightly. Sure you can be nice proactively. How beneficial is it for you to keep being super nice guy if that person never really reciprocates? However, I think it's more about levels of aggression that is the bigger concern, at least that's what I'm focusing on now. If someone you meet isn't really saying anything, but you start being super nice guy, you aren't being more aggressive towards that person than he's being towards you. It's pretty much no "aggression" either way, unless he's like "dude stop talking to me," then you might want to respect his wishes. What do you think about this picture?

Just had a thought. I don't know if it's accurate, but could the psychological damage of being an unjust aggressor (or not responding to aggression / not being able to escape it) come from the contradictions in the mind? Because the mind, on a subconscious level, knows that an unjust aggressive action isn't UPB?

I can buy that. I actually think that UPB might be too mind twisting for the common person, at least until they really delve into philosophy. So perhaps this idea is separate from UPB? I still maintain that it is universalizing someone's level of aggression (or the lack there of) back to them for your own safety and health, and not treating others unjustly or more aggressively for the sake of your own psychological health. Maybe it's a more all encompassing and more accurate description of the NAP? To combine it with self defense? I was thinking, perhaps it's the "Equal Aggression Principle."

I agree. I do think that my whole approach here is to figure out what is most prudent and psychologically healthy. Of course, we can do whatever we want, but there is such a thing as achieving greater states of psychological health, or having that health be damaged, based on how we treat others, and how others treat us.What do you guys think of this photo I've attached below? I could be wrong about the left right stuff, but I think I'm spot on about which causes psychological damage and which improves it. The Star of David has no religious context here, it's used for its original purpose, psychological health. If rights are properties, then we can do anything that we want. But it's good to be informed of the consequences of our actions. As an example, taxation is unjust aggression/threats of attack on the part of the government, because taxation isn't equal self defense against people, but it's the initiation of force when the people haven't done anything to "government". That puts government in the red domination position, and damages the psychology of everyone involved (power trip).It's all made possible because people didn't defend themselves against taxation when a government was first installed. They cowered to the threat instead of responding to it with self defense, which puts those people in the blue submissive position, damaging their psychology also. Now the government is so large that it would obviously be unhealthy to take them on with aggression, we'd probably be killed. But if we could and could succeed, it would be better for the psychological profile of society at large. All we can really do right now is oppose government philosophically, but that's at least psychologically better than not opposing their injustice at all.

I think this is a good encapsulation of the general principle and idea.

I agree about the first point. To the second, "do unto others as they do unto you," is universalizing other people's actions, to show them what it's like to be treated in the manner that they are treating others. People are automatically treating people a certain way when they come in contact with them, even if it's doing nothing by default. So automatically, if they do nothing or say nothing to you, you can respond with the same treatment. But there's also nothing "more severe" in smiling and being nice to them. I think the idea is that you can respond to people however you like, it's probably most prudent to respond with equal treatment, but you just shouldn't respond in a way that is more severe or damaging than how you were treated, i.e. putting someone in jail for smoking a joint is unjust on the part of the government, because putting someone in jail is more severe and damaging than the initial action of that person smoking a joint.

Basically, a way to put UPB that everyone can easily understand and might be willing to follow. "You can do anything to others, as long as they do it first," in the present tense. Giving the freedom of any action, but taking away the ability to anitiate it, which includes the initiation of force. It's a general principle, but "DO anything to others" implies physical contact specifically. This is what I put on facebook and fleshed out for my friends and family: I've obviously been going through and listening to a lot of Freedomain Radio. Through it and his book of the same title, you can learn Stefan's proof of a secular method of rational ethics, Universally Preferable Behavior. Trying to wrap my head around it, I've been thinking of what a succinct way to describe it, or ethics in general, would be. The healthiest way to be ethical is to treat others the way that they treat people, and the way that they treat you. To meet their behavior with equal behavior in kind. An evil person who harms people does not deserve a good persons friendship. It is not advantageous or productive to meet an abuser with love, even though we might have been brought up that way. An abuser will not feel the pain he is inflicting on others until the same behavior is mirrored back to him, which is actually self defense, or defense of others. Of course it is neither advantageous to put yourself in such a situation, but sometimes, we find ourselves there. Limiting the severity of the retribution to be equal to the other persons behavior ensures that we don't overreact. If a person steals an apple from me, and if I choose to pursue retribution, an equal and opposite response is merely to steal the apple back. Evil is kept at bay when good people respond to it, when we become the agents of justice and karma. Of course, rights are optional, so we could choose to do nothing. And we take all outcomes into consideration. So I would not take this specific retribution because of the outcome, but if this holds up, I would also have the right to meet government taxation with my own equal taxation of government. Voluntary and non-compulsory trade is already a freely agreed upon exchange of behavior, and retribution for that behavior, such as a payment. That is not the case with taxation. This goes all the way up to the good levels of behavior, that if someone treats me with love, that I should also treat them with love. However, if that same person treats someone else with abuse, then I should at least point it out, and respond to that behavior with abuse - defending the third party to the severity that the third party is being harmed. ---- One more thought. The idea above is "do unto others as they do unto you, and as they do to others." Which is different than the golden rule, "do unto others as you WOULD HAVE them do unto you." Here's the thing. If a person totally lived by the golden rule, then they could not use force in physical defense. They couldn't really defend themselves at all. The golden rule contradicts defense and self defense, because you would not "have" a person use self defense against you if you were an attacker, in which case, if you lived by the golden rule, you could not use self defense, either physically or verbally. Which is utterly corrupt.

Hey, I'm from Tacoma too. Ran a search here for Tacoma. I think it would be cool if we found other listeners, or at least other anarcho-capitalists to do meetups with, discussions, hang out, or something.

People seem to like this idea in the Facebook group. I was saying that a list of therapists who are FDR fans would be very helpful if I could find one in my area, but it might be easier just to ask you all who your recommendations or who your current therapist is, if you're willing to put up that information. I'd trust anyone you guys recommended, & they would be at the top of my list, & would probably get where I'm coming from the most. If you post your recommendation, you can post the city & state also to make this topic searchable for anyone else looking in their area. Thanks for your help!

...

Superstitious Christians yes, or else they recognize the damage it will do to the people you know, not to mention how fucked up everything has to be to get there to the point where you're not having a good life and have given up trying to fix things. Most are sad that tragedy happens, & rather than being happy, "hope & pray" that as many as possible went to heaven depending on their version of what they are supposed to believe or pray. Irrational I know but at least they don't want people to die. Only a radical minority would be happy about it. I've heard of bad experiences, similar to descriptions of bad drug trips, where they come out of it wanting to be better people and treat people better, because what they experience seems to be a just punishment for how they have been treating people. But that's where the savior mythology steps in to tell Christians that they'll be saved from all that regardless. You're still assuming it would cause all these problems & everybody would kill themselves for some reason if they "knew" there was an after life. They have to invent the savior mythology because they intuit that their psychological problems & guilt will carry over if they don't deal with those problems here. Weather it's legitimate guilt from violating the non aggression principle, or invented guilt from the clergy turning every other action under the sun into a sin, is another matter entirely. I thought that we are going by this principle: that the more accurate humanity's knowledge & perspective of truth is (aka taxation is theft), the better life we can make for ourselves & the less we will aggress against others.Now you are saying in this example: if an afterlife did exist & was scientifically verified, that everyone acting on that knowledge of the truth would fuck up society, economics, relationships, & life in general. Seems like an inconsistency.

of course it doesn't but I'm talking about how they behave, & they don't behave like theRobin's example.

Remember that most people are religious, believe there is an after life, & believe they have sufficient evidence to support that, & your scenario is widely not the case. If it were proven with certainty to all atheists, I don't think moral atheists are that different from any other human in that they would find their own purpose, meaning, or reasons to stay alive this lifetime; family, self knowledge, relationships, hobbies/art/work, education, creating a better world, etc. To stay on topic we are discussing the existence of an after life, not the quality there of, so no we can't assume a less stressful & more happy after life.

How would it? I don't see how it would. Not for people like you & I anyway, & normal religious believers would continue to do as they are told, so it wouldn't change their behavior either. And specifically here I'm talking about nde, out of body, and consciousness being elsewhere besides an effect of the brain, so we don't get confused as to what we're talking about.

Just wondering what your opinions are here, & I'm not claiming it as definitive proof one way or another. I've heard a bit about it in podcasts, but like you've said, since it doesn't have any influence on how I should act I have not spent much time looking into it.

@slavik I don't know who your question is aimed at, but what about near death experiences & out of body experiences that happen when someone is clinically dead & without brain activity before being resuscitated? Widely documented, is that not evidence that our consciousness is not an effect of the brain, & is that not support for the brain as antenna argument?

As something legitimate to look into. Neil Degrasse Tyson has talked about it too back when I went through all of his star talk podcast, so I'm assuming that the scientific community does think about it and that it's not merely theory, because he's very rigorous with the scientific method & anti superstition. Just wondering what field it's in. I also listened to all episodes of "what on earth is happening" & from that I know that some occults really get into the study of higher dimensions, psychology, & the natural world. Their conclusions might be a bit supernatural, but they are formed to occult (hide) scientific knowledge from the rest of the population. The host of that show is an x-member, but in wanting to help humanity & not hurt humanity anymore, there is a lot of cross over between his show & free domain radio, even though there are many disagreements also. If we compare the flat surface of two dimensions to our experience of three dimensions, & imagine that extruded to four dimensions, it should all have to do with different types of "space" & how that "space" can be occupied. I hope I'm on the right track with this. We being 3d can not occupy space on a surface (think the new Zelda game). Our image can when we print out a picture, but if we tried to occupy a plane, all our organs would be crushed & we'd be dead. So perhaps things exist in the fourth dimension that can not occupy the third. Perhaps an image of something in the 4th can exist in the 3rd (bible reference) but not the actual thing.

A couple questions for you guys. Can higher dimension exist all in the same universe as with Carl Sagan's example? IE if we exist in & are aware of 3 dimensions, can we possibly measure anything in the fourth, & does mainstream science recognize these higher dimensions? I know the occult does. After listening to "against the Gods?" I wanted to put forward a better & updated theory of "God," http://thepodcastexperiment.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-gods-rebuttal.html & basically went into the ideas of higher dimensions & of our collective conscious.

I agree on all those points. That's pretty much what I'm saying. Without violence & coercion, "government" would just be/become another company that we could do business with if we chose to. In realistic terms, Molyneux has been convincing me of this: we need to educate people so that a larger percent of each generation is raised morally, & hopefully someday no one will want to work for or be part of "government" out of moral objection.

This approach would be because people are to scared to rationally discuss life without government. I think my point is that "government" is in the wrong because they use violence & coercion, but if they didn't, there'd be no reason to get rid of "government." If they stopped using coercion & violence & we used forced to shut them down, then we'd be in the wrong. We would become the ones using threats & violence to get rid of them. Not saying it would ever happen but I think it's a good argument to win people over & a good mental exercise. Would my fellow anarchists be ok with "government" if they stopped using coercion & the initiation of force?

I posted this rant on my Facebook page, so it's geared for a very statist audience, but I was wondering what you guys thought & if it might be a good idea to retool our approach to introducing people to anarchism. I think this is the thrive movie approach: I'd go for a totally voluntary and optional government. Words can be invented & used to obfuscate reality & intention & to scare & terrorize people into conformity & compliance. Would you be surprised if I said that I'd be all for government IF all "taxes" were optional, all programs became services & products, & IF we were given the freedom to choose what government programs we wanted to pay for without fear of coercion, threats of violence, jail, or murder? If taxes & government services were optional, government would be called a business, & taxes would be called a bill for those services. While they are not optional, "taxation" is actually theft, "government" is actually organized crime, & their "services" are actually intrusions & monopolies. While there is government in its current form, or any corporation or mob using force, fraud & coercion, there is actually no freedom & this is actually not a free market. The free market, which is just me freely & willingly trading with you or anyone else I want to, has been demonized by mislabeling our current situation. If government is involved at all, taxes anything, subsidizes anything, or forces anybody to use their currency that they keep inflating, it is not a free & fair trade that is responding to natural supply & demand. Maybe I would vote if all taxes would become optional. But that's not going to happen so I'm not going to waste my time pretending that I can influence anything to become better by voting. But since the word anarchy has become demonized to scare the public into believing that it equates to chaos, now we have chaos. Anarchy means without rulers. If you don't want anarchy, then you want threats to coerce your money out of you, and you want violence initiated against your neighbors for not paying off our masters. So to appease everyone's anxiety we've developed over the thought of having no coercive slave masters, it might be easier for people to imagine optional taxes & services rather than no government. Until people start using words correctly & recognizing the actions of evil people for what they actually are, I'll start describing our solution this way, but it really is the same thing. No politician will ever be elected who will want to put a stop to government theft & coercion, but let's pretend like that did happen & the government did make all services optional. Maybe the infrastructure would be useful to maintain order, peace, and prosperity. It would be much more than sufficient. If government became a profit driven business that didn't use coercion to gets its revenues & income, it would actually have to slim down, cut unnecessary jobs & budgets (putting most government worker parasites out of work), become more efficient & streamlined. If we saw or heard about anything the government was doing that we didn't approve of, we could actually make a difference by boycotting it & their services. Because of that, if all of government was voluntary, they would actually have to work out all their problems, inefficiencies, & evils. Only a vote with our dollars or resources to trade is a vote that actually counts. We'd actually have a say. Since we don't like war, wars would be over. Since we don't like incarcerating peaceful people, that would stop. Since some of us want to help the poor, handouts would stop. We'd stop the practice of indoctrinating children for 15000 hours that coercion was a virtue, that they could only aspire to be workers & job seekers, & to love their masters & their servitude. EVERYTHING wrong would be made right. The markets would become truly free, & much more equality would come about, because we wouldn't approve of protecting corporations from their liabilities, & bailing them out when their gambles failed. Government would become responsible & liable for any evils it perpetuates, hurting its own business. Government IS ACTUALLY a business right now, but one that is allowed to use coercion & violence to get its revenues, giving it a monopoly or else an unfair advantage in any industry it decides to get involved in, raising prices for everybody, & the debt for our unborn generations. If we made our moral standards apply to EVERYONE, without a government exemption, ALL OF THE WORLDS EVILS & INEFFICIENCIES WOULD EVOLVE THEMSELVES OUT OF EXISTENCE. If government were just another peaceful and optional business, then there would be nothing called "government." We would be our own rulers, & there would be anarchy, which would result in real order & peace. All government programs people would WANT to pay for would still be provided. So there'd be optional services for roads, police, & security/protection, as long as there is demand for that product. The entire existing system can be beneficial for us ONLY if it is voluntary & optional in its nature. If you want me to move because I don't like coercion, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS VIOLENCE DONE AGAINST ME & MY PROPERTY STOLEN FROM ME. YOU HAVE BECOME AN ADVOCATE OF VIOLENCE & MURDER, & YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CAN MOVE. Now that you have this knowledge & an understanding of these higher moral standards, you have to evolve past what you've always thought & your state worship. Now that you have heard that taxation is theft, you either accept that definition, or you are compliant with evil.