EclecticIdealist

While this is a matter of debate, it is my opinion that it is immoral (according to UPB) because the children cannot avoid the lie of the parents, thus it is unavoidable behavior. That it is unavoidable is the general distinction between immoral and aesthetically negative.

I would say the primary character virtues are: humility - recognizing your limitations and the contributions of others, compassion - accommodating the limitations of yourself and others, and integrity or being honest and faithful to yourself and to others.

Yes. There is nothing which prevents a person from developing and expected perspective or even changing one's perspective . As far as learning these expressions from another, the fastest way is by being totally immersed in the culture, preferably with someone with a similar background as yours from birth, but who has been completely immersed in the other culture for several years as well as someone immersed in that culture from birth who has been immersed in your culture for several years. In this way, you can get the perspective on the culture from someone who has gone before you as well as someone coming from it who now lives in yours. Reading books about the cultural traditions and mores can help, but nothing can compare to actual first-hand experience. Everything that we learn from verbal language to facial and body language we learn by repetition of example and repetition of practice with feedback. The fact that we can share a common understanding for very complex ideas expressed verbally (even if that understanding is only 95-99.99%) is testament to the fact that we can ultimately learn to understand others, including their facial expressions and body language. Whether or not we will truly appreciate or love what we come to understand will depend entirely on how much it fulfills our needs, desires, and expectations (or standards), the lower our needs, desires, and expectations (standards) the easier we will find it to appreciate and like (or perhaps even love) others. However, such love comes at a cost, that being the sense of intimacy and connection that comes with having high standards and finding someone who meets and matches those high standards, and you theirs. It is always best, in matters of the heart, as well as matters of friendship, to enter every encounter with a new acquaintance or potential friend or more with eyes and heart wide open, without any anticipation or expectation. That way, we don't create fantasies about the other person which they will almost invariably fail to live up to, and which we may then come to resent them for. Rather, seek to get to know (at least superficially) as many people as possible until you find people that you connect with in a dynamic and mutually beneficial way. Even these relationships may not work out as sometimes, they work in 4 out of 5 areas, but the 5th is a deal breaker for one, the other, or both. Ultimately, given enough experience, you will find people who you will truly understand and who will truly understand you, including people you may connect with on a very deep and emotional level; but only if you work to have a similarly deep and emotional relationship with yourself. As for humor, it really depends largely on the type of things which you find humorous, or do not find humorous. Some people find slapstick (physical) humor such as slipping on a banana hilarious; others who have been prone to an over-abundance of teasing for being clumsy or being bullied may find such to be not only not funny, but painfully disturbing. Others may find scatalogical humor (fart jokes, and the like derived from bodily functions) to be funny, and others may find other forms of humor derived from the misfortune of others to be funny. Nevertheless, if one has been the butt of frequent jokes at one's own expense, or empathizes with those who have, these too may be anything but funny. Still others may find puns and various wordplay to be humorous, whereas others find it tedious or trying, as they prefer their verbal communication to be direct and predictable. There are many reasons (including some I haven't mentioned) which may be the cause of your not appreciating the sense of humor of others, or others not appreciating your sense of humor. Nevertheless, it is likely you encounter those who do, and these individuals can become great friends or more, or simply passing acquaintances with whom you can share a humorous joke, anecdote, or whatever else might make you laugh. As to intimacy, I believe it is sharing life experiences with others in an emotionally and intellectually honest, open way. It means being completely genuine and present in the moment with the person you are with, unreserved, without being inappropriate, undemanding, and completely available to someone who is the equally undemanding and emotionally and intellectually open and honest about themselves and what they think and how they feel about you. Others may have a different perspective on intimacy which may be equally valid.

The biggest problem with “Universally Preferable Behavior” is the claim that it is an objective moral standard of behavior when in fact it is a subjective moral standard of behavior. According to Ayn Rand’s Objectivist Philosophy, the moral standard for man’s behavior, that which may be deemed “good” is That which is required for the survival of man qua man.” Put more clearly. Survival is a universal drive of all living things. Man’s natural instincts alone are insufficient for his survival. Man must act according to reason in order to survive. Man is capable of acting in a manner that is either self-destructive or in a manner that supports his survival. Those actions which are self-destructive are wrong, immoral or evil and those actions which support man’s survival are right, moral, or good. Some might mistake this as an objective standard because under certain ideal conditions it can be universally applicable, in other words, it is can be obligatory for every person independent of geography, time, age, sex, religion, belief, or any other circumstance, it is rational because it can be simultaneously obligatory for all people without creating inherent logical contradictions, and it is empirically or observably testable. Where it fails is that it presumes that man’s survival is an objectively true, correct, or good ideal applicable to all persons under all situations simultaneously, when the fact is, there are circumstances where this would not be the case; such as “lifeboat scenarios”, instances where continuing living under hellish physical torment is less preferable to its cessation through death, and so on. Furthermore, what may be required for one person’s survival may come at the expense of another person’s survival such as the ability to persuade someone (or not succumb to the persuasion of someone) to sacrifice their life for them. In short, what purports to be an Objective moral standard ultimately becomes subjective when actually put into practice. UPB attempts to resolve the problem of subjectivism by testing moral propositions for internal consistency (i.e. rationality), as well as external consistency (is it empirically observed or does it conform to our intuitive moral sense?) It will begin testing a proposition for internal consistency by testing whether or not the moral judgement of the behavior can be universally applicable, i.e. can all people simultaneously engage in the behavior (or refrain from the behavior) and be considered “good” for doing so? It does this by pitting two people in a room together with each engaging in the behavior in question and asking if such behavior can be considered desirable and whether each person can therefore be considered good. Of course behavior which is by definition abhorrent by the victim of it cannot be universally good, but refraining from such behavior by all parties can be considered, at least morally neutral if not morally good. By this standard, actions which benefit one at the victimization of another are regarded internally as well as externally consistent. The wrongness of such actions is determined by how avoidable they are on the part of the victim; for example assault, rape, murder, robbery and theft are actions which a person knowing they are likely or about to occur can scarcely easily avoid. But aesthetically negative behavior such as habitual lateness, passing wind, etc. can easily be avoided and while almost universally abhorrent are not usually considered immoral in the same way as the aforementioned violent and property crimes. Stefan does a good job presenting his argument for UPB, but as mentioned previously, it’s fault lies in the fact that, despite its claims, it too is inherently subjective, relying upon the premise that for any moral system to be valid, it must consider all moral actors to be equal (i.e., prefer egalitarianism over, for example, a class system), and therefore, for all moral behaviors to be judged equally. It also requires a preference for rational consistency over another system which may not be rational, but merely authoritarian as many religious moral systems tend to be (especially those originating in the Middle East). Without these two key preferences (egalitarianism, and rationality), as well as the preference for proportionality (one doesn’t treat simple assault like capital murder, or insulting a person like rape), non-aggression, and a recognition and respect for property rights, and UPB falls apart. In short UPB as a moral system (not the rational or scientific evaluation of moral propositions) is no less subjective than any other moral system that at first glance seems to be objective. What UPB should teach us, however, is that we should stop looking for an objective standard for morality, and instead look to the ideals which are most important to us and how best we might ensure that they are or become the guiding principles upon which our own lives, the lives of our families, and the lives of our communities, nation, and world are directed. UPB is not the only consistent moral theory, it is simply one of of the more consistent moral theories put forth. Objectivism, despite its flaws is equally consistent by the standards set forth by UPB If by “escape UPB”, you mean to not abide by behavior that is desirable by almost all, I would tend to agree with you. If by “escape UPB”, you mean reject all the claims made about it, I would have to vehemently disagree with you as illustrated by my comments above. You mean valuing things like private property, safety, consent or choice, and life is inherently subjective? How then can violating any of these be violating an objective moral standard if they're nothing more than subjective preferences (despite being almost universally desired)? That morals must be universally applicable to all is based on the egalitarian ideal—all men are created equal and therefore equally subject to moral laws. This is not the only possibility, even for a rational moral system. Is it immoral if some moral prescriptions or prohibitions only apply to some people and not to others? If so, why?

start here... https://freedomainradio.com/free/ particularly his books on Truth and on UPB but the short answer is, universal applicability, rational consistency, non-aggression, avoidability, and proportionate response... read or listen to the books and come back to this thread ready to discuss.

Your interlocutor is mistaken. A concept is the mental idea of any object, phenomenon, or relationship of objects, relationship of phenomena, or relationship of object to phenomena, or abstraction of any of these into hypothesis, principles, theorems, or laws that one is able to imagine. In short, a concept is a thought or mental construct about anything. We can only perceive that which exists. We cannot perceive that which does not exist. However, we can nevertheless imagine or conceive of something that may or may not exist, as well as things that certainly do not exist, or at the very least, probably do not exist, as well as things that cannot possibly exist (although these we can only conceptualize imperfectly).

Giving requires prior possession and typically ownership. By "giving someone liberty", one is asserting that liberty is not something that naturally belongs to the individual by right and is infringed upon by force, but is merely a privilege that is granted by the totalitarian state. They are the same course of action but they are fundamentally different in terms of rights, authority, and morality. Either the individual has sovereignty, or they are granted authority. By suggesting stating that by "giving individuals liberty" you mean "refrain from restraining them from making their own decisions/actions," you are implying that the individual is not being restrained from exercising their Individual Sovereignty (making their own decisions/actions). Thus, we see a contradiction in your position, which given your prior statements suggests a lack of consistency or clarity about the concepts of sovereignty and the state. What exactly do you mean by rights? If you mean, the recognition of an Individual's liberty to act as they see fit provided they do not violate the NAP, then you are exactly right. Society is not obligated in any way to respect the rights of an individual who is refusing to respect the rights of other members of society. So in that regard, it is perfectly consistent to say that rights are contingent upon good behavior. Those who seek to harm others or infringe upon the rights and liberties of others have no just claim upon society for society not to infringe upon their liberties in self-defense and the defense of other members of society. Natural rights advocates are correct that prisoners indeed have an inherent right to liberty, but such liberty can only be exercised where such individuals who are anti-social (i.e., not inclined to respect the rights and liberties of others) can do so without infringing upon the rights of others. We used to have penal colonies where such individuals were sent, but due largely to pragmatism, we no longer expel uncooperative members of society from society, instead we torture and abuse them in cages until a largely arbitrary period of time has passed or they have expired. I agree that the recognition of individual sovereignty requires wide-spread support for it to have any substantive meaning or efficacy, and absent a society willing to recognize such sovereignty voluntarily, one must wield greater individual power than the whole of society which refuses to acknowledge it if one is to enjoy it. This essentially renders society ruled by the law of the jungle rather than the law of reason and cooperation for mutual benefit. In short, the more a society acknowledges and recognizes the Universal Individual Sovereignty of Mankind, the more peaceful, cooperative, and mutually beneficial participation in that society will be for all members of society. The less it recognizes and acknowledges the Universal Individual Sovereignty of Mankind , the less beneficial it will be for all but the most powerful members of that society. And while I speak of sovereignty as something which actually exists, I do so pragmatically, as it is simply a philosophical perspective, a way of viewing myself and mankind which I maintain best serves the vast majority of mankind, better than any other system ever conceived or put into practice by intelligent, rational people. It may not be the best system for people who are less intelligent or rational who might benefit more under a benevolent dictatorship, monarchy, or feudal system.

Yes, it is mine, and you have permission to use provided you cite accordingly (John Robertson)

How do you figure out what you're passionate about? Try and many different things as you can possibly think of until you find something that really resonates with you. This might take awhile to discover. Think outside of the box about things you can try doing. Don't limit yourself to things you have done before or show a natural aptitude for. How do you know what your purpose is in life? You'll know when you discover what it is. It will be something that you can yourself enjoying doing for decades without getting tired or burned out. Long story, short: I'm a people pleaser and I'm really good at convincing myself that what others want me to do is what I want to do. Inevitably, I end up burned out and feeling resentful or used. Learn to "Just say no" when people ask you to do things. It's not your job to save people or their businesses, etc. It's your job to be the best you that you can be, and if that works for others, great. If not, their problem is not your problem. I have no idea what I want to do with my life. Nothing sounds appealing or exciting. If I don't have someone else's passions or projects to latch onto, I just end up drifting and feeling depressed, which is where I'm at currently. Depression comes from a number of different sources, but it sounds to me like you feel like you're wasting your life. It that's how you're feeling, you probably are. Pick something, pick anything that sounds the slightest bit interesting and do it. Don't commit to doing it for longer than a month. After a month, evaluate whether it truly bring you joy, or if it's just another learning experience. Move on quickly Has anyone else ever had this problem and overcome it? How did you do it? Pretty much as described above.

That is not the same thing as giving something to someone. If Universal Individual Sovereignty exists, it is as an inherent quality of the individual, or it is something which must be granted to the individual or otherwise acquired by the individual. You have suggested with your response that it is something which is inherent in the individual which can be infringed upon by other members of society. Now you are contradicting your previous claim by suggesting that individuals likely do not have the authority to grant or revoke the authority to act, but that groups do based on the sentiment that "might makes right" or in other words, "might grants/revokes rulership" or "power begets authority". The assertion that authority or rulership is derived from power certainly appears to have merit from an empirical standpoint. One can certainly observe that the strongest or most powerful tend to be the leaders in groups of animals as well as in groups of men; although "the strongest" generally does not mean the one displaying the most physical prowess. In modernity, one who is able to muster the most economic and socio-political power is superior to one who is most physically imposing powerful. Indeed, rights, much like Universal Individual Sovereignty, are philosophical contrivances having no inherent or independent abstract existence. Instead, they are something which societies choose to recognize as existing based on the cultural traditions and biases stemming from the Enlightenment Era of Western Europe. In short, they are the philosophical expression of the nearly universal socio-political preferences for a governmental system which embraces or embodies the ideals of egalitarianism, personal liberty, and property rights. Essentially, rights are the philosophical push-back of the enlightened common man against the authority claims of the rich and powerful claiming a right to rule over others, whether by virtue of divine censure, or noble birth, or some other attempted justification. It is the ultimate democratization of authority or self-rule into each and every individual equally.

Of course... but when you do claim it, which you did... ... then you don't get to go accusing someone of playing the strawman and claiming you didn't claim what you did. What was that slang definition for the word "own" again? Apply to the situation above where you falsely accused me of engaging in a straw man argument against what you actually wrote and then denied writing. Completing reading a sentence another person wrote and reading comprehension don't seem to be your strong suits. Either that or you are intentionally taking my claims out of context, which again is a violation of the implicit positive obligations of rational debate. Since you seem to not know what the definition or usage of the word inherent is and are asking me to inform you, I will do so. Inherent - existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute (from dictionary.com) As to how this applies to the discussion at hand, I asserted that consent to positive obligations is inherent in any agreement to adhere to a moral or aesthetic system where such positive obligations exist. Or to rephrase, Any agreement to adhere to a moral or aesthetic system which includes positive obligations includes a permanent or inseparable agreement to adhere to the individual positive obligations which make up that moral system. In short, if you agree to a contract, you agree to all the terms of the contract, including those which have a performance or positive obligation. I hope that helps you understand the definition or meaning of the term inherent as it applies to agreeing to moral and aesthetic systems with positive obligations in them.

You just solved the riddle of why managers are paid more than the employees they manage.

Happy to oblige.

If you wish to engage in a rational debate of ideas, you don't get to claim I'm making a strawman argument when I'm simply illustrating the absurdity of your claim that one must own another person in order to prohibit a specific behavior. If you didn't express your idea clearly, that's on you. Strawman my eye. Consent to positive obligations is inherent when someone agrees to a moral system or aesthetics which have positive obligations. There's no "implied consent" here. It's no different from the positive obligation of adhering to logic and reason when engaging in a rational debate. As to 'the society one is living in", this is a matter of scale, much like truth and accuracy. One society one lives in is the household one lives in. That is certainly measurable. Another larger slightly larger society might be the building one lives in (if living in a multi-family building), or the street one lives on. The next might be the neighborhood one lives in, possibly the congregation of the Church one attends, etc. The next might be the town, township, borough, or local community. The next might be the county or group of counties, or possibly the state, province, or territory, the next might by the nation or country, the hemisphere, and finally the world as a whole. There are obvious subdivisions than can be made, and some that might not be so obvious. Most societies can be defined by their common geography, attitudes, beliefs and mores or morals, although some may not be defined or constrained by geographical boundaries such as on-line communities, corporations with diverse locations, religious institutions with sites around a nation or the world, etc. These are all measurable as evidenced by the plethora of data that can be accumulated and referenced for various different communities and societies. Not quite. I'm claiming that your definitions are inherently self-contradictory. You're claiming the existence of objective morality on the basis of rational consistency. That's the same thing as asserting that it is objectively true that one should drive from San Francisco to New York City on Interstate 80 because one can drive from San Francisco to New York City on I-80. You can't derive an ought solely from an is. The rational consistency of a moral system does not make such a moral system inherently objective or true. If the only thing you are claiming is that your moral system is rationally consistent, and not that your moral system is an objectively true fact, then you are left with the burden of why one should adhere to your moral system rather than reject as nothing more than subjective preference for a rational moral system.

I see. No such thing as crime or immorality then, unless we own the criminal committing the crime or engaging in immoral acts against us, right? Cause we can only prohibit things like theft, rape, assault, and murder if we own the perpetrator of these actions, right? No. Subjectivity doesn't mean it is only meaningful to a single person. No, the person engaging in theft is not telling you they believe contradictory ideas about property rights, they are telling you they don't want you to have something, and they MIGHT be saying that they want to have it, but they might want someone else to have it, or they might not want anyone to have it, but they are not the slightest bit concerned about anyone's property rights. They are only concerned about the ability to control property, not the right to control it. They are not accepting property rights, they are not attempting to assert their right to the property belonging to another. They are engaging in behavior that is considered immoral by those who share the moral sentiments of society which prohibits theft; but they are not concerned about such morality. Such an idea never even enters their mind in all likelihood. The theif is unconcerned with the morality of theivery, at best, they are only concerned about not getting caught. No. Morality is, by its nature, chosen. The positive obligations under a common moral system are chosen unless one is in opposition to the morals of the society one is living in. We most certainly disagree on definitions; especially if you continue to argue for the existence of rationally impossible things including objective preferences such as "Objective Morality". You demonstrate that you don't understand on a fundamental level what it is you think you know about morality. You don't even seem to understand the fundamental characteristics or nature of the rational moral system you are espousing. You are nevertheless correct that the moral system you are arguing for is objectively rational. It just isn't "objectively moral" or objectively true. That you seem unable to grasp the significance or even the ability to make these distinctions is indicative of how little you understand about morality. I completely agree that abstract truths such as 2+2=4 are not preferences, they are abstract facts. Moral rules, on the other hand, are preferences. They are morals because they are preferences shared by the majority or whole of society or they are dictated by the leaders of society and obligatory upon the members of society to uphold. If they weren't held by the majority of society or obligatory upon the members of society, they wouldn't be morals, they would at best be considered potential morals, aesthetics, or individual ethics, etc. By requiring that moral rules be universal, you are expressing a preference for egalitarian morals; i.e. morals which are universally obligatory upon all members of society. This is not the only type of moral system, but it is the type of morals most people in the West who believe in the idea that "all men are created equal" almost universally espouse. A non-egalitarian moral system is what is commonly practiced in totalitarian governments, and many nuclear families where there are different moral standards for different members of the society... one for the ruled, and a different one for the rulers. A common example of this is Sharia Law - a moral system which has different moral standards for men and women, and for believers vs non-believers. All morals are subjective because all morals are preferences which one can choose to uphold or be obliged to uphold (and be deemed moral), or one can choose to violate (and be deemed immoral) and incur the consequences (if any) of such violation. The search for objective morals is a vain and futile endeavor, as vain and futile as searching for any other objective opinions, preferences, or ideals. The best that one can do is promote the ideals, values, and rationally derived morals which one prefers and deems best for oneself and society.

No. ALL MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. Not Some, not most, ALL Morality is inherently Subjective. It cannot be anything other than subjective. It can be based on objectively rational principles, but it is inherently subjective because all morality is nothing more or less than preference, and preference is inherently subjective. In an attempt to support your erroneous assertion that there exists an objective morality, you offer the assertion that theft is internally inconsistent. What you fail to realize or understand is that theft is only internally inconsistent if one maintains that such a prohibition is universal; that all moral laws apply to everyone equally. But that is another preference, the preference for egalitarianism; which again is inherently subjective. What all morality comes down to is, “If you want X, you must Y”. If you prefer rationality, egalitarianism, and Universal liberty and property rights, then the universal prohibition against theft is rationally consistent. If you you don’t prefer egalitarianism, then a universal prohibition against theft is not rationally consistent. If you don’t want a rationally consistent universal prohibition against theft, then you must not have an egalitarian moral system. You have just demonstrated why you do. The definition you use is not the common, dictionary definition of the word “preferable” which is “desirable or suitable”; instead the definition you suggest with your example is “capable of being preferred”. No. Anybody that thinks morality is subjective does so because they have either been taught that it is, or reasoned out that it is. The only ones that believe it is objective are those who believe what statists, religionists, mistaken philosophers, and sophists will tell you. Morality has meaning. It is the set of prescriptions and proscriptions which are intended to support the collectively held ideals and values of a society. When the moral system is rational, it succeeds in supporting those ideals and values; when it is irrational, it often does not. So even though this is a shared subjective preference, you see no meaning or benefit for it because it is subjective?

What do you mean by "give a consciousness sovereignty"? Do you have the sovereignty to grant or revoke sovereignty over another person? If you claim that you do, from whence does this sovereignty come? I maintain like the thinkers of the Enlightenment era that Universal Individual Sovereignty is mankind's natural state. It is not something we grant to others, it is something we recognize as inherent in our fellow human beings. For us not to recognize it is to invite violence against us as we attempt to impose our will upon others through violence.

Internal consistency, i.e., rationality, in a moral system does not make morality objective; it only makes it objectively rational. Morality is the expression of a preference for one behavior which is deemed moral over another behavior which is deemed immoral and is by its very nature or essence subjective, despite how rational its positions may be. You’ll have to explain what you mean here, as preferable directly implies a preference that is held by someone, i.e. “preferable to me”, or “preferable to the majority”. While it's true that they are not the same word, their meanings are inherently tied together, the one being an adjective describing a behavior whereas the other is a noun identifying the aforementioned behavior either specifically or generally. I agree that the proposition “theft is good” (like the other propositions for murder, rape, etc.) is rationally inconsistent in an egalitarian moral system (i.e. one where the morals are universally applicable to all members of society), but that still only speaks to a rational moral system, not an “objectively correct” or “objectively true” moral system which is the problem which the OP is wrestling with. Again, this is not saying anything about the morality being objectively correct or true, it is only saying that a moral system that condemns these behaviors may be objectively rational, which is not the same thing as what the OP is dealing with. There are objectively rational moral systems which are not egalitarian, but rather patriarchal in nature which neither you or I would agree with, but our disagreement with them would not make them any less objectively rational, i.e., internally consistent. It has everything to do with the ideals you are promoting. No. All morality is subjective and only ever has the meaning imputed to it by its adherents or detractors, not just the morality of religions and governments which attempt to dictate morality in an dictatorial or oligarchical manner. The morality you prefer is a rationally consistent libertarian morality which values universal liberty, private property, and egalitarianism. Unfortunately, not everyone in America appears to value such ideals more than the values taught to them by their religious and political institutions (not to mention, the media).

Actually, the assertion that must be proven is that Objective morality is anything but an illusion. Stefan attempted to prove the existence of an objective morality with UPB, but failed (in my opinion). Any morality that is based on preference is inherently subjective because preference is subjective, even if such a preference is nearly universally held by everyone and shown to be rationally (internally) and empirically (externally) consistent with observed behavior. The preference for Vanilla Ice Cream, while in the majority is by no means proof that Vanilla is objectively the best flavor of Ice Cream, it is only objectively the most preferred. Facts are objective truths, preferences are subjective opinion. Anyone who says differently is mistaken.

The numbered mice represent documented (legal) immigrants. The other critters (mice without tags, toads, lizards, and the like) represent undocumented, illegal immigrants. The crickets represented "a free lunch", and the creatures eating the crickets represented illegal aliens getting a free lunch by entering the country illegally. When you awoke, most of the animals were gone, and only a couple of benign mice remained. This dream represents your subconscious mind processing the problem of emigration and the welfare state (the crickets being a "free lunch" attracting the critters). Once the "free lunch" was gone, so too were all the critters. Or it might represent something entirely different. It all depends upon what your subconscious mind associates with the critters.

Objectively morality is an illusion every bit as much as absolute subjective truths. The two simply do not exist materially or rationally. What does exist is rationally consistent moral systems (such as the one proposed by Stefan in UPB). Nevertheless, rational consistency is not the same thing as objectively true. The best that one can hope to accomplish is the definition and promotion of a rational moral system that is universally applicable (egalitarian), universally (or nearly so) held or preferred, and supports one's highest ideals and virtues (such as universal liberty and the respect for private property). While the ideal of universal liberty is by no means an objective truth, the implementation and practice of such a moral system by a significant majority of members of a society can nevertheless be shown to offer the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of people to enjoy happy and productive lives. Such opportunity and adherence can be rationally and empirically shown to be the system most likely to lead to the greatest happiness, greatest productivity, and greatest increases in objectively measurable standards of quality of life. If these moral ideals and the resultant consequences of their being followed appeals to you and everyone else, then such a system is the best one for you and everyone else to follow. If not, then you can rest assured that you will find yourself in conflict with the members of society whose ideals you do not share, and if you are not sufficiently strong or clever, you will succumb to the will of those who are.

Self-ownership is a false-start, and red-herring. Universal Individual Sovereignty is the proper start. The sapient individual is sovereign by nature. The assertion that must be proven, the assertion which requires justification is the assertion that the individual is NOT sovereign, that one individual has authority to control and dominate another. The notion that parents have a just claim of rulership over their children is based on what, that they created them and therefore have the right to control them? That would certainly be fine for things incapable of sentience, consciousness, and volition; but if one is to expect others to respect one's own sovereignty, one must respect the sovereignty of other sentient, conscious, volitional beings. To not respect the sovereignty of others is to invite others to respond with violence to any initiation of aggression, including the aggression of attempting to enforce one's wishes over another.

in a principled manner

If I had the opportunity to do the last 20+ years (adult part) of my life over again, the things I would attempt to do differently: - Get a BS in CS (programming) as soon after High School as I could, and immediately work to find a job (any job) doing programming. - Continue pursuing my education in programming by identifying the next hot trends in programming and spending time to get ahead and stay ahead of the curve - Take classes on Entrepreneurship - Save and then invest at least 10% of every paycheck - Spend at least three days per week working out at the gym - Learn proper nutrition and follow a slow-carb mediterranean diet - Spend more time dating different people with no other objective than meeting different people