RichardY

You missed the subtle distinction within the video you posted. 5:28 if you wish to review. Right to LiVe, is a Positive Right. I can tear out organs from potential "donors" to live. Immoral Right to LiFe is a Negative Right. By saying you have no right to life, if we take Morality as Universal you are effectively saying I have no right to Life either, so are one of the following: A Nihilist, Insane, Hostile or Mistaken. I did however find the video more clarifying, even if the voice sounded a little grating thank you.

You miss understand me, I mean you literally and not someone else. The incentive does not have to be negative it can be positive. I was wondering if people respond to incentive what incentive would you take to do an immoral or unjust action. I agree reasoning is preferable to a point but if the leader of a nation establish rule by force how much can you reason with someone who only acts by force. "Peace in our time" Mostly because I'm concerned for my own future in Europe and am thinking of whether to leave by any moral means I can think of, or stay and fight evil. If I can build on my ability to identify inconsistencies and doubt then I could use that against Evil or cowardly people.

A lot of the credibility was lost in Labour when they flooded the country with an open door migrant policy, the Eastern Europe migration was originally claimed to be 10,000 or 100,000 but ended up at over 1 Million. In Peterborough its funny hearing some of the Muslim migrants argue there is too many foreigners. Peterborough also has or had a school where no one speaks English as a native language.The first past the post system still slightly favours the conservatives as country regions are generally more Conservative or UKIP and less populated. I think the SJW's are still probably there but they would have to be at the level of drooling idiots, got Jihadists instead now. UAF is the main SJW organisation I think, total hypocrites.

http://scottishlibertarians.com/the-hope-of-affordable-housing/ Link was broken for some reason, got a UKIP mailing address instead, so did a google search. Good article, seems like a nightmare for average first time buyers to get a place in the UK. The State screws up building additional council housing and still gets more money, the councils estates are rubbish construction and layout compared to property built 300 years beforehand. I think IMO the average habituated Baby Boomer Brit though expects house prices to continue to rise ad infinitum over the longer term. I think they would have to fall, where is all the wealth going to come from to buy the existing stock? and if the country continues to go to shit in many areas why would people continue to live there.

No one does Sarcasm like the English .

Was wondering if anyone has a way of obtaining Certification that would allow a UK citizen(Me) to travel and work in any country of the World, ideally something legally ironclad? Have a few ideas maybe someone has better information or experience. The Magna Carta In England in 1215, the right to travel was enshrined in Article 42 of Magna Carta: It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us, and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above. Kingdom being the operative word, as long as Australia, UK, Canada and New Zealand have the same monarch as Head of State wouldn't this apply to all? saving his allegiance to us I can Kiss Ass to a point. (Assuming incentive and not infringing on certain moral/just values) Merchant Might be a way of carrying out business in the Kingdom by being a hotdog "Merchant", could be non domiciled as well to avoid tax. If that doesn't work maybe there some more obscure, even absurd law I could go by. Perhaps Article 8 on Human Rights, The Right to a Family Life, have some distant cousins in Australia. Some foreign criminal was allowed to stay in the UK years a go because he had a cat. Asylum Seeker Method What if I transfer my citizenship to some messed up African country and then claim Asylum through persecution in whatever country I like? Desperate Housewife Method Anyone know any desperate housewives? Own shares in a Virgin Islands Hotel Method Heard about this one from a couple in Girona Spain. Chinese investors were "investing" money in a hotel in order to obtain UK citizenship, something about paying a certain amount for a license and they would gain citizenship for themselves and children. The hotel was never finished. Method was pretty expensive as well. Diplomatic Immunity Method Not sure how I would go about that, but talked to a French girl in Canada from Morocco whose parents had diplomatic Immunity, they would sometimes shop across the border in Spain for Pork or Alcohol and bring it back into Morocco, shitty country both literally and figuratively. I Love Communism Degree Anyone know where I can do something "useful and skilled" like a socialism degree for "Free" and within a year in Europe or somewhere else I just want the legally obtained and Valid paper certificate. Chameleon Method Just show up in a country and blend in, not so keen on this method, would have to know the risk and reward, would hate paying out for multiple flights. Sailor Method Anyone know of anyone or website requiring novice sailors, willing to learn don't mind long potentially hazardous voyages. Could stay in the boat and fly different flags.

dsayers, on 06 Jun 2016 - 10:50 PM, said: "They also", meaning I do not disagree that people respond to incentives. But, as you seem keen on people responding to incentives. What incentive would make you run around the WhiteHouse perimeter naked with a sign saying and screaming like a lunatic "Freedomain Radio is The Best" ?

If someone tries to murder me they forfeit that Right. Rights only exist as far as they are implicitly or explicitly mutually acknowledged. Best post on the thread.

RichardY, on 06 Jun 2016 - 1:41 PM, said: What if I just want to admire the "decor", raid the mini-bar help myself to some scarce Dom perignon Champagne and sit in the Jacuzzi? Why only maybe I should, of course I should .(Might have trouble with the hounds though, plus a potential 44 Magnum blowing my balls off might deter me). But, how would something like the Mini-bar and Champagne be aggressing against me? So if I'm hungry can I go sit in a restaurant have the meal be satisfied then not pay? Also do you effectively define what property rights are? As you distinguish between scarce and abundant. How do you enforce the transfer of abundant resources? So the Serfs in Russia forced to work the land, had what was coming to them when they were thrown off the land in favour of more technological methods? Or it was Ok to remove slaves from the land in the Southern States of America and steal from the taxpayers to give them more marginal land elsewhere. Or Remove Clansmen from Scotland in the Highland Clearances. Or for the Aristocracy to Appropriate large tracts of land in Prussia for the Kaiser and fellow Aristocrats. As far as someone does not adhere to Stefans UPB implicitly or explicitly I agree, the fact people can conceive of Rights enables their existence. Without the conception or adherence to Morality you are left only with a will to power. But by saying that you have no right to life aren't you effectively putting a target on yourself, basically saying you can shoot me if you want to and take my stuff and suffer no moral implication from others and visa versa? Or that you effectively have no Morality no difference between good and evil, murder and to be alive?

They also respond to justice or present society and advanced technology would not exist. How many Generals or people would have followed Washington, Rommel, Patton, Lee, Napoleon, Hitler, Caesar, Attila, Genghis Khan, Richard I & III, Barbarossa, Cortez, James II, Alexander the Great, Stalin, Mussolini, Saddam, Gaddafi and Mugabe. If they knew they weren't ready to stake their lives at least once on what they believed or desired rightly or wrongly. How many Japanese would have followed their officers if they weren't ready to gut themselves if they lost or have their head cut off? Mutiny in the French Army in WW1 was covered up probably because the officers and generals weren't ready to die. How many American G.I's would be willing to follow their officers or Generals in Vietnam if they knew they were cowards?

Yeah if I were an African sitting in some shit hole shack next to a dump site and I had a TV or Phone and I saw all those Syrian Refugees getting into Europe I'd be going to and storming the barricades shouting MONEY!!!! and what has begun as a "trickle" has quickly escalated into a flood and where the Rams go the rest of the sheep follow. Something major has got to happen somewhere right? Maybe the Leaders in China and Russia are having a field day with this, lending money screw up the economy and society pick up the pieces. I wonder if they will stop lending and crash the Dollar and EURO I hope they do, before Europe or the USA die from an overdose of "easy money". I think there is some Chinese Proverb about Leisure being someone's doom can't remember the rest, should probably bare that advice in mind.

Yes, there is environmental variability both during development and after. Perhaps physical space within the womb the mother's movements, various forms of radiation. But, 88% correlated IQ seems fairly high, If they only had 10% correlation It would make sense that either they had individualistic souls or the Environment was determining them kind of like some clay or voodoo doll. The problem I see is the more you say the environment determines you the less freewill and the less of you as a person you effectively are saying there is. I would say you inherit your I.Q but not necessarily the same level or ability of the parents, so you carry the genetics which you may pass on to future offspring. Not that someone would ever do this, but if you had one twin in a box isolated with the bare necessities to maintain breathing and the other had a life of Intellectual stimulation, if you tested them when they were 60 I would imagine the boxed twin would do much better then the free one. However with the dawn of the Internet, the capacity for people to be in contact with one another and information I would imagine would decrease the environmental effect on IQ. I think the issue is there isn't a smart or dumb gene, but more, like cogs working together in a machine, Brainfolding might be good if it creates the potential for more neural connections, but your also looking at neural transmitters, myelinated cells, blood circulation, heart rate, spinal nerves. Perhaps when your dealing with humans your dealing with a much wider genetic base 3,000,000,000 base pairs vs 130,000 for some bacteria or 5,000 pairs for some viruses any changes or gene expression in the more simpler organisms I would expect a much wider change in the nature of the organism. Something like a human however maybe less of an effect unless it is something absolutely vital, maybe critical organs have duplicate coding to cover potential errors to prevent early death. You can live without hair or fingers, you can't without a heart or brain.

But who is the Enemy? I'm not sure firebombing and incinerating 100,000,000 men,women and children is sane and goes way beyond horrible when "The Enemy" can do the same to you and even if they can't. What if a group of politicians could break the will of the enemy by launching a first strike or by escalating to Nuclear, Chemical or Biological attack, maybe they estimate there might be only a 0.5% chance of effective retaliation, even with a 0.5% chance would that be considered sane? (would you even cross the road if you estimated there was a 0.5% chance of death or crippling injury). There was a case of the Christmas Truce during WW1. Russia pulled out of WW1 becuase of The Russian Revolution, with the spread of Socialism/Communism a poor logical argument, but powerful rhetorical one. The Glourious Revolution in England was resolved by talk when the English King fled and the Dutch King took over. The Kings of Europe or Greece would sometimes fight each other or appoint a champion in single combat to decide a battle or prevent a war. If war is sane then there is no chance of preventing or resolving it, unless everyone goes insane.

The Biker does not assume the Moral Authority to tell people what to, or order people to their deaths. They can't claim Moral Authority to start a war if they themselves are not ready to die. If they claim Divine Right than obviously "God" would choose the victor, in single combat. Printing the Bible destroyed the Moral Authority of the Church at least in the eyes of those able to read it in their own language. I would say they are either children mentally in critical thinking or robots that have no freewill/other information, if they only follow orders, not cowards. Coward would be believing in the good and doing nothing. So politicians and Heads of State don't do this by claiming to represent the country? Would that make Donald Trump a coward by claiming to "make America Great Again"? If War is insane, which I will argue it is. Then how is making the person more insane going to deal with the longer issue of war. I use the expression "Skin in the Game" only as showing commitment, like having shares in a company.

I was wondering if the Leaders/Mafia Dons of nations think that war is presumably a just solution why not fight directly against one another, have some skin in the game? You could have Putin and his Defence and Foreign Minister vs The Ukrainian Chocolate Boy, Victor Poroshenko and his Goon squad. Could still test out and develop better weapons and technology, but would have a more localised destruction. Could equip them with Flamethrowers and Fighter jets. Same with Saddam Hussein, Bush and Blair. If they don't fight wouldn't it be reasonable to call them cowards? I mean if they really are doing things for the good of the people, why not have people willing to stake their lives and not the millions of lives of others, who want no part. If people like Saddam, Putin, Gaddafi or any politician that base their rule on violence, politics being force right? Then surely they would lose credibility and anyone could bump them off (probably a Junior Military Officer, might be why Stalin carried out purges, he wasn't being paranoid), without fear of reprisal. With the Internet now surely it would be easier to broadcast such a challenge, kind of like the Ice bucket challenge, just replace the Ice with Acid and have them throw it at each other.

So if Property Rights are Aggression, maybe I could go live in Jennifer Lawrence's Bedroom? (Kind of pervey I know but I use as an example). Or maybe go around your place and help myself to some beers (I only drink alcohol socially) or other stuff of value? If Property Rights are Aggression there is no Property, only stuff to take as you will.

Assuming the environment is kept relatively consistent between 2 children wouldn't approximately 100% of IQ be heritable? To say otherwise would be to suggest some outside factor like a soul? Or... to say that you are determined by your environment and IQ is irrelevant. The children would obviously inherit a fairly broad genetic base assuming no inbreeding so I guess any high IQ migrants offspring would probably regress to the mean (for their race), though maybe marginally higher given higher IQ parents. Hybrids. I wonder if it possible to produce much higher IQ offspring from lower IQ parents? So you could have one tribe say the Celts of the British Isles, with small round heads but a fairly large amount of brain infolding, fairly peaceful fewer tribal incursions (K selected excluding the occasional wicker man sacrifice). Compared to the Saxons or Vikings with larger more square heads but less brain infolding. If you crossed the two you could have potentially more brain infolding within a larger head size. Maybe you could name the new race or tribe the English or something. I think Steve Jobs, Bruce Lee and Cher are examples of Hybrids. Also I think some of the "large" brain sizes in China has lead to a lot of C sections (50%).

Anyone know any good critical thinkers and their works? Leaving out famous philosophers, Kant, Rand, Aristotle, Stefan Etc. I'm thinking on topics of Psychology and Learning, but also on Novels such as 1984 George Orwell.

Isn't the Genetic code a lot of repetition and redundant or vestigial code? Perhaps like shuffling millions of decks of cards together, one pile from the mother and one from the father, and cutting the deck. Maybe the new hand the child is dealt with will contain a few Aces, but they could be either at the back of the deck and recessive or diluted across a wide genetic code, assuming less inbreeding. More inbreeding might result in more pronounced features maybe even desirable traits, but also a lot of Jokers or not enough variety in the deck to form various features, toes, fingers, brain structure etc.

Excellent post. I can relate to the last sentence a lot. I think the feeling of pride can often dissuade people myself included from doing things that either maybe to their material benefit and long term health or from doing what is just. Seeing people in real life and not through the Internet act differently in a way that you know is just or probably to their long term benefit, I find helps. I think shame though can sometimes be the result of pride if you have the capacity for critical thinking and some level of empathy.

I would imagine the population will continue to increase, unless there is some major natural or man made catastrophe. I think tomato yields in The Netherlands are up to 400 tons per acre compare that with a yield of 10 tons in some other areas of the world. Food shouldn't be a problem unless its an Idiocracy scenario. Aesthetically though not really to my liking, with people stacked on top of each other like the Movie Blade Runner. Feels Claustrophobic to me in some areas of the UK. Beaches are pretty crowded too in some areas of Europe, should dynamite a few cliffs perhaps. Short on the human race sounds a little sinister, but not that much (I'd vote your post up but out on quota for the day). More specific demographic data might be better, I have heard the population of the Czech Republic has been stable for a while (Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars guy), so maybe it'll level off.

Problem with Sweden is I don't think most people there recognise a just form of law or any law when it comes down to it, both native Swedes( "Majority rule") and Islamic migrants. (Sharia Law). A result of the unjust state of affairs is obviously the wealth transfer from native swedes to Migrants, as well as Sweden making No 1 in Rape Crimes (I wonder how many people know this?, seems Evil how this is not more widely addressed). Why would anyone move to Sweden? Ok they have some very Intelligent people, who have built up productive industry, I guess you would have to be, to survive in a cold and in some areas Sub-Arctic climate. Why not move to Portugal instead? The climate is much warmer with a better growing season, plus there are abandoned houses already there to occupy. If the migrants are going to live on welfare in Sweden what else are they going to do but, screw themselves and everyone else. I'm not sure if Nationalism (for the Natives) is going to be able to fix the declining real economy and national debt, plus avert bloody civil war. The problem would be how they would get into and hold onto power and whether they would really be Nationalist at all. If the National Party is Socialist they're just going to wreck the economy anyway and get removed one way or another. Maybe the Military will takeover as has happened in countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain. Plus a lot of the things holding Nationalism together are mostly dead, Christianity and in-group preferences. IMO there should be things like Freedomain Radio to at least spread critical thinking to those who are able. I'm not saying that Nationalists are bad, in fact the BNP in the UK did investigations into both the MP expenses scandal and Rochdale grooming, I just think they get cut to pieces when they focus on getting elected or stage protests and Nationalism has so many differences in economic and cultural approaches. Smaller, but many resistance cells (occasionally working together), broadcasting the Truth are going to be way harder to infiltrate and corrupt. Many Northern Europeans are all fairly similar anyway why can't we all work together? Southern Europeans are fine too, though they always seem to go on strike, I'm not sure if they would be able to implement a better network of justice for a while. The younger generation will decide the future. Most, but not all of the Baby Boomer Generation seem just too fat and cynical, plus they don't have a clue what to do. (a bit like me, not so much the cynic any more) Kind of feel in the dark really.

I think the term Joint Enterprise makes more logical and just sense than unjust Collective Punishment. However, I can think of instances of where the excuse/irrationality of "collective punishment" is used such as schools, decimation and massacres to deter partisan resistance. The term Collective I guess is less specific than the term Forest, how many trees make a forest?

Is there a situation where collective punishment is justified?

Saw Micheal Gove (Lord Chancellor and A leader of the In Campaign) on the Sky News Brexit debate. Despite a hostile leftwing audience and journalists interviewing him he dealt effectively with the questions asked about Brexit. The best one was when a student asked about the "Democratic" nature of the EU and Gove asked how many of the 5 current European presidents can the audience name? Lot of Rubbish with the journalists and certain members of the audience asking for economic plans and forecasts. Told the audience to think for themselves and not trust politicians. Was funny that the first journalist Faisal Islam, brought up how the head of JP Morgan thinks the UK should stay in Europe, with Gove replying that the big banks including JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs give millions to the In Campaign (They still can't get a decent remain video on Youtube though). Never under estimate the Lord Chancellor.