Nathan Metric

It depends on what you mean by immoral. Stefan uses "immoral" in two different ways. In UPB, Stefan makes a distinction between "aesthetically negative" actions and "morally evil" actions. Aesthetically negative actions are actions that break a moral rule, but cannot be dealt with violence (examples: lying, verbal abuse, indecency, cowardice, etc) . Morally evil actions are actions that not just break a moral rule, but ought to be met with violence (examples, murder, rape, theft, etc. The big stuff) So the simple answer is no. The initiation of force is not the only immorality that one can commit, but it is the only immorality that one ought to be dealt with violence. Other forms of immorality need to be dealt with by means other than violence. If you want a simplier breakdown of UPB I've been working on I can send you a PM.

The argument is circular reasoning. The love it or leave it argument doesn't actually explain where the government's authority comes from. It just assumes the government has authority. The argument also assumes that one can change the system by leaving it. Nonsense. The only way to fix society is to participate in society.

Governance. Guide for human behavior. Two ways of saying the thing. Even an anarchist society has governance. It is governed by a polycentric legal system. Okay, so you want ancapitalism to make its goal to follow the NAP. Okay, WHY? Why should anyone follow the NAP? I'm afraid you have completely missed the point of what I was saying. The NAP means nothing to those who disagree with it. You have to be able to justify it. I believe in the NAP, but I won't believe in it for no reason. The Non-Aggression Principle saids that aggression is wrong. It doesn't say ALL violence is wrong. There are three categories of violence. Initiation, retaliation and preemptive. Initiation or aggression is that which interferes with self-ownership via the infliction of injury or death or via the threat of injury or death. Retaliation is violence that is a response to aggression that deters aggression in the future. Preemptive violence is violence that prevents aggression from taking place. A distinction without a difference. If reducing aggression is virtuous then eliminating aggression is most virtuous.

Correct. Can you show me where I created automatic positive duties? "Good" means that which you are morally required to do at all times. For example, refraining from murder is good. "Virtue" means that which you ought to do but are not morally required to do at all times. For example, reading books is virtuous. "Vice" means that which you ought not to do but is not always evil. For example, lust is a vice. "Evil" is that which you are morally prohibited from doing. For example, stealing is evil. Obviously you can't make positive action (actions that require the manipulation of the body and/or the extra consumption of energy) a moral requirement because a)Any higher principle that justifies any positive duty will probably justify other positive duties. An individual can't fulfill two positive duties at the same time. or b)A physical condition may prevent a person from fulfilling such positive duties and thus would be put into the status of evil. A valid universal moral rule doesn't force anyone to be evil.

This is one of the things I disagree with Trump on. See I work in a metallurgical business and sometimes the cheapest industrial equipment comes from China. If for example, we wanted to buy another induction furnace for $30.000 a 33% import tax would force us to pay practically another $10,000 dollars on top of that. That is ALOT of money. Protectionism designed to create industrial/manufacturing jobs can easily destroy present industrial/manufacturing jobs. Negating its own purpose. Protectionism is a way for politicians to pretend they are creating jobs in order to avoid having to deal with the real issue of the economy: why is domestic industry uncompetitive in the first place?

A rational being is someone who acts consistent with the truth axiom. It is not merely someone with high intelligence. Yes, you can have two intelligent people who have a conflict of interest, but you cannot have two rational people with a conflict of interest. Even if it is between children and parents. I will even go as far to say that a person who isn't rational is not as intelligent as they could possibly be. For example, let's say you have two people going in for a job interview. Obviously only one of them can actually get the job. It doesn't matter though for as long as both of the people are rational there is no conflict of interest for both of them are concerned with acting consistent with the Truth Axiom. A rational person does not desire the unearned for awarding a job to the lessar candidate is not economically efficient. That which is not economic efficient cannot serve the cause of truth as well as that which is economically efficient. The pursuit of truth is limited without economy. There is only so much truth an individual or collective can grasp without functioning industry, agricultural, etc. A rational person also understands his/her limitations. The truth doesn't merely come from individuals. It comes from competition and meaningful interaction between rational beings. There are only two unnatural causes for chaos in the word: stupidity and conflicting moral rules. Stupidity can be negated by applied rationality, but conflicting moral rules will always be a threat regardless if people are intelligent.

Disagree. The NAP can't be a goal for governance for the simple reason that the Non-Aggression principle is not axiomatically true. It can only be conditionally true in relation to a goal. That final goal has to be axiomatic. What is an axiom you say? It is a proposition that is coherent, concise, and impervious to critique. Also, those dreaded "what if" scenarios are only threatening if your moral theory is incomplete or arbitrary. Here is a simple deductive form of UPB. A therefore B therefore C therefore D, etc. 1)Truth is morally superior to falsehood. (I like to call this the Truth Axiom). 2)Accumulating knowledge is virtuous, directly or indirectly helping the pursuit of knowledge is virtuous, and being honest with rational beings is good. 3)Living and interacting with rational beings then is virtuous. 4)Actions and policies that aid interaction between rational beings are virtuous. 5)There are no conflicts of interest between rational beings unless there are conflicting moral rules. 6)Thus, universal morality is preferable to non-universal morality. 7)The NAP the only universal moral principle and thus it is the final principle of governance. 8)Therefore, the only effect of any particular violent action that is to be consider is the effect that action has on the level of aggression in the world. Violence that increases aggression is evil and violence that reduces aggression is virtuous. All other actions are judged based on how consistent they are with the Truth Axiom. Although I agree that the NAP is the final principle of governance it is not the first principle of governance. Simply reducing aggression can't be the final goal. There has to be some overarching higher good that justifies the NAP. If you have more questions I can send you a private PM of an improved version of UPB that I have been working for the past 2 months.

You don't judge nation-states the same way you judge individuals. Governments are just as criminal in nature as the terrorists they are fighting.

Girlwriteswhat on "Equal Responsibility" Part 1 of 4 10 Reasons Why a Man Should Not Have to Pay Child Support

I'm not going to respond to someone who is just going to ignore what I said or interpret what I say to mean the exact opposite of what I said.

Dude, what are you talking about? I was trying precisely to prove that men and women do not have equal responsibility. Let's make this even simpler. When it comes to pregnancy a man only makes one irreversible decision at one point of time. A decision he makes along with the woman. The woman makes an innumerable number of decisions many of which are reversible for a period of approximately 9 months almost all of which require neither the consent of the man nor oversight from the man. And you still you think men and women have equal responsibility? How can a man be equally responsible for something he doesn't have equal power over? Ownership = Control = Responsibility. If you don't have power over something you can't be responsible for it. If you want more info Girlwriteswhat (Karen Straughan) on YT completely debunks the idea of Equal Responsibility for pregnancy in a 4 part series. What? You are trying to justify forced child support. Only one of those three theoretical examples would justify forced child support. The other two wouldn't justify it. This means the mere fact that a woman is pregnant does not conclusively prove that a man "consented" to child support. So what? The fact that implied boundaries exist doesn't justify any specific standard of consent in any particular situation. You also seem to be COMPLETELY unaware of the moral hazard this particular social convention creates. It increases the chance of slavery, unplanned parenthood. single parenthood and all the resulting evils that arise from single parenthood. Why would you want a non-universal social convention that results in moral hazard? Why? Strawman argument. I never said all consent has to be written down. I said when it comes to certain things it is wise to enforce a higher standard of consent. Just because written consent is the only universal form of consent doesn't mean other forms of consent don't exist.

Yes, pregnancy and abortion has both a monetary cost and a biological cost. So what? Having sex with someone = consenting to a bunch of duties. Let's put some things into perspective. 1)Sex is something good in and of itself. Sex is something human's pursue because it feels good. Not just because they want kids. Most sex is casual sex. 2)The decision to engage in voluntary sex is a decision made by two people. Nothing is imposed on the woman that she didn't agree to. 3)No man can force a woman to control her fertility and force her to have an abortion. If a man wants to use a condom the woman also has to agree to it as well. Any form of condom usage, birth control or abortion is fundamentally the woman's choice. The latter two of which the man has no say in whatsoever nor does he have the right to know whether she is fulfilling her end of the bargain. 4)Birth control and condoms have a small possibility of failure. Their ability to stop pregnancy is not absolute. 5)It's also theoretically possible for a woman to steal sperm from a condom in a dumpster. This is extremely rare, but it could theoretically happen. Thus, pregnancy doesn't necessarily require that the woman had sex with the donor. Given all the above, what sense does it enforce an implicit standard of consent when it comes to obligation to render child support? What sense does it make to treat men and women as having equal responsibility for pregnancy? Clearly women are 99.9999% responsible for pregnancy when it comes to voluntary sex. Now as for social conventions, It's completely possible for men to understand the social convention that he is to be treated as though he is equally responsible for pregnancy but this has nothing to do with whether the convention is justified in the first place. Also, you speak of a man accidentally giving himself a STD by having sex with some woman and that the woman has an implicit duty to render him medical aid since she gave him an STD. I agree that she does, but that is because this is a clear case of injustice called fraud.. If a woman gets pregnant and is demanding child support however it it is not a clear cut case of injustice. She can be pregnant becuase a)The man defrauded her. b)Mechanical failure of birth control methods. Accidental misuse of birth control. c)She defrauded a man and is trying to manipulate the court system into enslaving him. There is only one universal and absolute standard of consent: written consent. As far as I can tell, unless the contract is written down and signed there is effectively no contract. Implicit contracts if they exist at all should only exist for minor obligations such as paying a tip to the waiter. Not for obligations as life changing, as time consuming and as expensive as child support. If you enforce too low a standard of consent you create moral hazard.

To answer the original question, I have thought long and hard about how UPB could be "religiotized" if you understand what I mean. We without a doubt would have to have a different idea of God. "God" would have to be a metaphorical/mythological equivalent of the universe itself. Representing the universe as an intentioned entity rather than an accidental machine. Science would explain the universe in a accidental, mechanical fashion awhile the religious would explain in the world in terms of entities and intentions.

Good question. Is forced child support justified? First, we need to have a standard of virtue. 1)Truth is universally preferable to falsehood. 2)Because truth is morally superior to falsehood living with rational beings is preferable to living without rational beings. 3)There are no conflicts of interest between rational beings unless there are conflicting moral rules. 4)Therefore, morality that is universal is preferable to morality that isn't universal. So in order for any moral theory to be valid it must a)Be universal b)Serve the purpose of morality/natural law which is to aid the pursuit of the truth. So would forcing child support from a parent who had a child with another parent be moral? Under natural law, coercion is wrong unless it's purpose is to reduce coercion in the long run. This is a logical correlate of the NAP. Taking this into account it would be logical to ask whether the parent is contractually obligated to provide child support otherwise any force against such an individual is to be construed as initiation. This of course begs the question what exactly does it mean to be "contractually obligated" to do something. The only universal standard for consent is written consent. Of course, there is such a thing as implicit consent and explicit consent, but when it comes to an obligation as huge as the duty to provide child support and the threat of moral hazard that comes from enforcing too low a standard of consent it would make sense to respect only the highest possible form of consent which is written down. So to answer your question, the only duty a parent has to provide child support is that what they consented to via written contract. If no contract exist then the women is 100% responsible for burden of child rearing. If this sounds harsh then I recommend watching Girlwriteswhat's early videos on Equal Responsibility which debunks the idea that men and women are equally responsible for pregnancy.

The purpose of life is to figure out what the purpose of life is.

Christians exist in reality. Christianity is an abstract concept. The actual behavior of Christians is more important than the logical implications of what they claim to follow. This thread is related to Stefan asking a guy would he rather live with atheists or Mormons. The level of corruption each group has would matter in such a question. Who is more corrupt has EVERYTHING to do with the conversation.

Believing in something without evidence is foolish. Not corrupt. The only Christian I know that is outright "anti-rational" is Sye Ten Bruggencate, but he is a rarity amongst Christians. Hardly any Christians are that dense in rejecting the efficacy of man's mind.

Stupidity doesn't prove someone doesn't value the truth. You want to understand Stefan's behavior? Okay then. You would have to allow yourself to start comparing groups then. With Christians you are merely dealing with people who are stupid and ignorant. With nihilists you are dealing with people who are corrupt. It's a lot easier to talk morality with someone who is a fool than someone who is corrupt.

These unemployment statistics have the same fallacy that crime statistics have. They completely misunderstand the nature of the state. Crime statistics only count private crimes. Not the crimes of the state. Once you factor in the government as an agent of violence than any rational discussion on violence statistics goes out the window. Same with unemployment rates. Unemployment statistics only count people not working. It doesn't care whether the work the people are doing is productive or not. Once you factor in the fact that government employees are useless or outright destructive you'd realize the real unemployment rate is not 4 percent, or 6.6% or 7.7%. It's more like 50%. Sorry, but joining the MAFIA doesn't count as being employed.

The difference between talking morality with Christians versus nihilists is that Christians merely have false information about the world whereas nihilists are hypocrites and a small subset of them are outright sociopaths. Christians believe in the value of the truth. "I am the truth the way and the life". They merely are wrong about what the truth is Nihilists do not believe in the value of the truth for its own sake, but only pursue the truth if the truth aids them in their will to power.

Argumentation ethics is similar to UPB, but Hoppe comes to the wrong conclusion with his approach. He saids any rational debate presupposes libertarian ethics when it would be more reasonable to say that any rational debate presupposes the moral significance of the truth and libertarian ethics and the principle of universality are merely deduced from the objective value of the truth. The objective value of the truth is the foundation of UPB. In argumentation ethics, you get a hypothetical imperative of "libertarian ethics are necessary for rational debate" but it avoids giving a definite answer to what is THE objective value by which you measure all other values including the value of rational debate in the first place. Thus, Hoppe's argumentation ethics is incomplete and inferior to UPB. Also the "is/ought" thing is completely hypocritical, Typical Hume Argument 1)You are factually wrong for believing in objective morality (the IS) 2)Therefore, you ought not believe in this thing called objective morality (the ought). The argument only works if the listener can derive an ought from an is.

Where did we get this idea that property rights are absolute? Property rights are rights that are deduced from other moral values. Not the end all of morality.

There is no philosopher on YT that is as rigorous, as principled or as clear thinking as Molyneux. But here is my list. Some libertarians, some conservatives, some neo-reactionaries, one MGTOW, one smarter than the average liberal, and one dude who is just plain weird. From most libertarian to least libertarian. LarkenRose https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFeK8ZdHbCqAq3gekWs8aEQ TomWoods https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsgWR55UyAiFarZYl1u1l9Q Peter Schiff https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIjuLiLHdFxYtFmWlbTGQRQ Morrakiu https://www.youtube.com/user/Morrakiu/videos RockingMrE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzOnXvfwc32YEiwTe_8Nf-g AaronClarey https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcjX483N0jRI3qznYU0w3pg Davis M.J. Aurini https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6TJdRrZR_WacbxJWiRZ5_g Bar Bar https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDoNFQZqQpd6aL32Ua4JPTQ ThuleanPerspective https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChBsOxskMpDmBAsgJ91fKcg Ramzpaul https://www.youtube.com/user/ramzpaul/videos MrMadnessSotomayor https://www.youtube.com/user/sotomayortv2/featured Roberto Mangabeira Unger https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbaZ_Vc_T7tm7iZSV-mMKMg

What people typically call "free will" is nothing more than the belief that human action is subject to moral considerations. "Determinism" is the belief that human action is not subject to moral considerations (nihilism). By this understanding the determinist position is self-contradictory. The determinist uses words like "wrong" or "incorrect" to describe the free will position which presuppeses that one OUGHT to be correct. That one OUGHT not be wrong. The only way the determinist can get out of this dilemma is by admitting that the free will/determinist question has nothing to do with morality, but then what is the point in answering it then? What's the point in saying no one has free will if you just going to subject them to morality anyway? It's just a pointless debate.

The question "why be virtious" is a mal-formed question. It presupooses that one should act or believe in something for a good reason. A more proper question is how do we convince people who only look out for their hedonistic self-interest to pursue virtue? This is probably going to ruffle the feathers of the strong atheists on this site. Pose a wager. There are 5 possible outcomes of death, 1)Death is absolute. Our bodies go to the grave and that's it. 2)We wake up from the Matrix and are greeted by advanced humans that look nothing like us. 3)We are forced to suffer an evil supernaturality. 4)We are unconditionally rewarded by whatever supernaturality. 5)We are conditionally rewarded by the supernaturality So how do these 5 possible outcomes inform us of the signifance of out actions. 1)Our actions have no meaning for there is no hope for mortals. 2)Our actions have no meaning because our reality is just a simulation, 3)Our actions have no meaning because evil cannot be trusted. (Evil can betray. Trying to secure favors with evil is absurd and pointless) 4)Our actions have no meaning because we will be rewarded no matter what we do. 5)Our actions DO have meaning because we will only be rewarded to the degree we pursue what that supernaturality thinks is virtue. So what do we have? We have 4 options where our actions do not matter and we have 1 option where our actions do matter. That one option tells us that we should act virtiously. Therefore, you should pursue virtue because a)you could potentially be rewarded after death because of that virtue and b)you are not "wasting" any of your life anyway even if the other possibilities are true. Now to be clear, this is not the same as Pascal's Wager because Pascal's Wager is an attempt to justify being part of a specific religion where this Wager I've formulated doesn't justify any particular belief system. It merely provides a reason why you should pursue virtue period.