labmath2

Tell that to parents of 16 year olds. On a serious note, the question that post was a work up to is when preferences matter and whose preferences matter? In some contries assisted suicide is banned and punishable under the law.

I have thought about this pro lem as well. I came out with an intetesting solution. Murder 1 : victim does not prefet death. Murder 2 : a friend or family of victim does not prefer victims death. Murder 3 : at least one person in the community does not prefer the victims death Killing : intentional act to end someone's life. The proposition of UPB had to do with preferable- can be preffered by all parties involved. Based on my reading of UPB only murder 1 fails the UPB test, though an argument could be made for murder 2 and 3.

What i want to know is if it ticked.

To address the more general point, responsibilty is based on two things; knowledge and reason. Many people i imagine are more knowledgeable than you realize. Especially as a parent, i think you can tell what your child like or dislikes and how they feel. The hard part is reasoning. Too many people substitute popular (social) reasoning for theirs. Think about the asch experiment or milgram experiment. How much responsibilty they hold (in my opinion) should depend on their capacity to see the problem after the fact.

I wish people had more courage to refuse to pay taxes, but self preservation is human nature. The robinhood story is not complete without the deserving poor. Robinhood is not a thief as long as there exists the poor who are victims of the rich, or at least deserve a piece of their labor. The minute the poor refuse to accept what doesn't belong to them, robinhood becomes a common thief. This does not stop robinhood from stealing, but at least we all see him for what he truly is.

From my understanding, alll those reasons fall under three; supply, demand, or printing. Change in supply is inversely proportional to inflation, or if we produce faster (more) with less or same cost, you get deflation and if you produce slower (less) with more or same cost, you get inflation. Demand is proportional to inflation, the more people want it, the mote it costs. Printing more leads to inflation, while no more printing leads to deflation. The only good kind of inflation is a result of increase in demand, it either means more people want it (luxury) or increase in population.

While i am not very educated in climate science, some reports suggest it is already having effect. Those who live on shore lines who will have to move is cost. Farmers who will have to relocate is cost. Potential changes in patters of natural phenomenons like hurricanes or tornado is cost. These are just a few cost associated with changes that are rather obvious, what about increase in use of air conditioner which consumes oil that could go to more productive use?

The government steals money on the premise of delivering public good. The system only continues as long as there os someone to steal from and a recipient of the good. Given that most will choose giving away some of their earning than go on strike and starve, the victims will always exist. Should the beneficiaries sieze to accept, the thieves will be shown for what they are. You may deserve the money more than most other beneficiaries of the theft, but you are now an excuse for the system. Every dollar you take is a testament to the public good the system achieves. Every dollar more you demand is proof of the morality of the system. Not only does it justify past theft, it encourages future ones as well.

I think the point libertariansocialist is making is about fairness. In one of Stefs videos, someone challenged homesteading by asking stef to apply upb to it. Interestingly, stef did the two guys in a room test but he assumed both men would homestead half the room. This is the point of contention. What if one guy homesteads everywhere except the place the other guy was currently occupying. What if instead, they arrive in the room seperately abd the first guy had already honesteaded the whole room before the other guy got there. None of us would find it fair that one guy owes the other guy for merely being in the room. This is the essence of the lockean proviso.

I think there are two interpretations of might makes right. The first is the sirvival of the fittest. In this case might means your biological success, regardless of how you attained it. The second is social and political and economical. In this case might is really influence. Those with great powers of persuation or lots of money or position of authority are the powerful. I think this is closer how the world currently operate.

what do you think

The movie comment is something i have thought about. If we are characters in a movie, we will always choose what the plot is. Its like superman in all superhero movies, he has no choice but to engage the bad guys, but he doesn't know that. In fact there are moments when superman agonizes over a decision. He doesn't know that is just part of the plot, and then he subsequently makes a difficult decision. If the creator were to write a character into the movie that came to convince superman that he is in a movie and is really not in control of his actions, i am sure superman would have many good counter points. As a movie goer, you would understand that those counter arguments are also part of the plot. Though this kind of mental exercise is fun, its unproductive. Its best we live as if that isn't true because if it is, we wouldn't know it. Even if we did, we would be powerless to change it. Although, i think it will make for a good short.

Why should you be obliged to develop your land lest it become soneone else's land? It intuitively srmeems fishy. The second one is just encouraging trespassing.

No one advocates for a position that says people are fully autonomous beings. The question is, how much freedom do you associate with people's decision? At the very least we all understand experience, environment and genes make up a large part of a persons identity. But is there more to an individual outside those three things? What if we rephrase the question? If we have two identical universe,is it possible for it to diverge (provided the only way it can happen is if one person can make different choices with all other things being equal)? The first part is important because it helps us to know who is who since most people we know are already have a fixed identity. The second part is less useful since it doesn't improve how we interact with the world.

People won't be replaced by machines because they still need to make money to buy the product.

Stories like this suggest people are choosing government which makes it hard to call it the initiation of force.

This came up because i saw a story of a guy who was cheating on his wife and ended up getting the girl pregnant. Now the girl wants child support. Without the state, would people really be fine with him being forced to pay child support even if he wants nothing to do with the child?

Is it moral to require that one parent be forced to pay for the support of the child they had with another parent? Should they be allowed to relinquish responsibilities as well as right if they so wish?

Doesn't universalizing lying also universalize fraud?

In thus scenario, assuming the average and standard deviation is calculated before adding the bonus, there is an incentive to want the points. If you are sure you eill get an A, you dont care, so you select 6 pooints. If you think you are getting less, a 6 point increase almost gurantee you will move up one standard deviation, but there is yhe risk. 2 point might be sufficient to change your grade, but its not as sure,

I am smarter than you therefore i am right. Well i can beat you in a fight therefore i am right. Its a non sequitur.

What would it take to change your mind that a persob can be transracial?

What?

I was under the impression that 5 could include 1 through 4. It is supposed to be whatever good reasons you have to persuade someone that another persons death is good. Can you please give a reason why 2 is immoral? Can you also please give a reason why giving someone money to do something immoral is itself immoral?