UPB summarized for my young students (teenagers) I love this video!

[jpahmad]

I'm crossing my fingers with this video.   I hope I didn't screw it up.  I did my best to summarize UPB in a way that anyone can easily understand.  I'm very pleased with it and I think it is very powerful.  

 

 My whole family is watching these videos I'm making and I'm about to "drop the bomb" on them with this one.  My only goal is to effectively change their voting behavior and their belief in government as a whole.  They have been agreeing with me all the way so far!

 

I also teach a bunch of teenagers and they are always wanting to see my videos.  So, this one is for them as well.  It's a game changer. 

 

 

 

[Snafui]

Only one thing made me twinge... it's a proof of ethics. This one word in the title causes more confusion for people out there than anything in the book because they miss that one foundation to what is being presented.

 

[edit:] At the beginning you say it's a system of ethics--I forgot that part when I typed the above. That's what had made me twinge. I was tired last night when I typed the above, sorry.

[jpahmad]

Only one thing made me twinge... it's a proof of ethics. 

 

 

Yeah, but it comes with the territory.  I suppose there could be another way to phrase it, but what would be that way?  Stefan Molyneux titles his own book on the topic "A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics", so I figured if he could do it, so could I.  

 

Other than that, was there anything else that was problematic?  (I hope not, because I already shared it with everyone I know)

[square4]

do you have a transcript available?

[jpahmad]

I don't.  I read the script and then trashed it after the video was finished.  I also inserted some stuff into the voice-over that I had not originally written down.

[Will Torbald]

I think it summarizes the UPB argument well. However, curiosity would ask from where did the universal principle come from in the first place. Is it made up, or is it fundamental?

[jpahmad]

It's made up.  Like all principles

[A4E]

Awesome!

 

If you want some criticism, I found the parts about murder, stealing, and raping being 'unwanted' a bit confusing, because it was fast paced and you did not adequately explain the relevance imo. Even if I now understand what you wanted to convey. Those parts might throw off some people.  But maybe thats just me...

[Cuffy_Meigs]

Thanks for posting the video, I enjoyed it. in particular I thought your answer to the question about being okay to steal as long as it was majority approved or 'for the common good' was very well presented. Important as that response will probably be the knee-jerk reaction of anybody who hasn't given the matter previous consideration.

 

Good stuff!

[jpahmad]

Awesome!

 

If you want some criticism, I found the parts about murder, stealing, and raping being 'unwanted' a bit confusing, because it was fast paced and you did not adequately explain the relevance imo. Even if I now understand what you wanted to convey. Those parts might throw off some people.  But maybe thats just me...

 

 

Thanks for the feedback.  I suppose I could have slowed down.  But, then I would have had to make more graphic slides and I was getting tired of the whole project.  So, I just figured people would maybe watch it twice.  

[Thomasio]

I like the concept, I agree fully, it would give a near perfect society.

I have just a few follow up questions, regarding self defense.

 

If someone attempts to kill you, you may apply force to prevent him from doing that, I guess that's agreed?

But how far does that remain moral?

If you prevent him from doing that right there, do you leave him free to try again the next day?

Lock him up for a given amount of time to make sure he can't try again for a while?

Kill them to make sure they can never try again?

 

If in Cologne 1000+ immigrants gang attack women, how far does self defense go?

If the women prevent them from doing that right there, do they have to leave them free to try again the next day?

Should other people come to help the women defend themselves? How far can that help go?

Kick them out of the country but leave them free to try the same in some other place?

Lock them up for a while, so they can't do that anymore for a while?

Given the fact it was like 99% sure something like this would happen under the given circumstances, should the country prevent further immigrants from coming into the country, to prevent these things before they happen?

 

Since the government not only tries, but in fact does steal from us, how far should our self defense go?

Should we actively abolish government as soon as possible, or wait, do nothing, accept their immoral behavior for the time being and hope they might one day get to the same moral principles we hold?

 

In general:

If any such thing happened and the victim couldn't prevent it, should the criminal get punished or get away with it for free?

If a punishment is moral, then who should decide what punishment is apropriate and who should enforce the punishment?

 

Or am I completely on the wrong path and you're talking about an utopia that cannot be achieved as long as just one human anywhere on earth doesn't follow this same moral principle?

[jpahmad]

 

 

In general:

If any such thing happened and the victim couldn't prevent it, should the criminal get punished or get away with it for free?

If a punishment is moral, then who should decide what punishment is apropriate and who should enforce the punishment?

 

 

 

Good question Thomasio.  The answer is that in a free society everything would be privately owned.  So, if someone tries to kill me, I not only can kill them in self-defense, but I can kill them if they're on my property without my permission.  My neighbors would also be able to kill them if the guy who attempted to murder me was on their property.  And so, because I would most likely report the incident to an private organization that oversees security in what ever community I live in, that guy would be ostracized out of the entire geographical area.  Unless, he agrees to certain terms, like rehab or something.

[Thomasio]

Good question Thomasio.  The answer is that in a free society everything would be privately owned.  So, if someone tries to kill me, I not only can kill them in self-defense, but I can kill them if they're on my property without my permission.  My neighbors would also be able to kill them if the guy who attempted to murder me was on their property.  And so, because I would most likely report the incident to an private organization that oversees security in what ever community I live in, that guy would be ostracized out of the entire geographical area.  Unless, he agrees to certain terms, like rehab or something.

 

Who shall finance that private organisation and who sets the rules that private organization shall enforce?

Who shall enforce the ostracism, how do you make sure that guy cannot come back and who shall pay for that?

(Asylum seekers in Europe often engage in criminal actions like shoplifting, burglary, etc., when caught they are usually expelled from the continent, but mostly try to come back instantly, meaning a society that want's to enforce and maintain ostracism has to keep track of 10s of 1000s of expelled criminals.)

Who will warn the area wherever a criminal goes to about the danger he poses to society, or is it morally ok if one society dumps their criminals on some other society?

What would your society do, if some other society dumped their criminals on you?

If a criminal agrees to rehab, but has no money, who shall pay for that?

 

Isn't all that already a rudimentary form of government, including paying a rudimentary form of taxes, only without the huge downsides our current governments have?

Wouldn't a private security organization have all the exact same downsides a police force under government has, including corruption, PLUS the additional downside of being profit oriented and therefore more expensive?

 

You didn't answer, what happens if a crime could not be prevented.

Do criminals who are smart enough not to get caught in the act get away for free, or will you have some kind of (private) police force that hunts the criminals and puts them on trial and if trial, who will finance that?

 

Last but not least, you didn't answer: What can we do to defend ourselves today from the ongoing theft by the government, or better what would be the morally right thing to do against it?

[jpahmad]

Who shall finance that private organisation and who sets the rules that private organization shall enforce?

Who shall enforce the ostracism, how do you make sure that guy cannot come back and who shall pay for that?

(Asylum seekers in Europe often engage in criminal actions like shoplifting, burglary, etc., when caught they are usually expelled from the continent, but mostly try to come back instantly, meaning a society that want's to enforce and maintain ostracism has to keep track of 10s of 1000s of expelled criminals.)

Who will warn the area wherever a criminal goes to about the danger he poses to society, or is it morally ok if one society dumps their criminals on some other society?

What would your society do, if some other society dumped their criminals on you?

If a criminal agrees to rehab, but has no money, who shall pay for that?

 

Isn't all that already a rudimentary form of government, including paying a rudimentary form of taxes, only without the huge downsides our current governments have?

Wouldn't a private security organization have all the exact same downsides a police force under government has, including corruption, PLUS the additional downside of being profit oriented and therefore more expensive?

 

You didn't answer, what happens if a crime could not be prevented.

Do criminals who are smart enough not to get caught in the act get away for free, or will you have some kind of (private) police force that hunts the criminals and puts them on trial and if trial, who will finance that?

 

Last but not least, you didn't answer: What can we do to defend ourselves today from the ongoing theft by the government, or better what would be the morally right thing to do against it?

 

Have you read Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux?

[Thomasio]

I have, but he doesn't talk about what we should do today.

He talks about an ideal world in which all people share the same idea of a free society and the effect that under such circumstances everybody would behave automatically.

I actually agree to this, it just doesn't help me today.

 

The ideal free society works only if it exists worldwide, the time to get to that might be several 100s of years and there's no way to get it started throughout the whole world all at the same time.

Some country somewhere has to get started, show the rest of the world how it works and watch the rest of the world copying the idea after they discover how much better it is.

But as long as a free society exists only in a specific region or country it has to protect itself, especially against religious fundamentalists.

(To my mind a free society would have to defend itself against religion even if it were a worldwide free society, but let's put that aside for the moment.)

 

That's why I was asking what we can do today to defend ourselves today against the ongoing theft by the government, because we have the human right to self defense, but somehow that right isn't valid for the tax laws as long as there is a government.

It seems to me, not doing anything but wait until the ruling class abolishes itself would take way longer than I'm willing to let the ruling class get away with ignoring my human rights.

That would lead also to my other question, because letting them get away with the stealing for several more generations is identical to criminals getting away with their crimes if only they don't get caught (and shot) in the act.

[jpahmad]

 

 

That's why I was asking what we can do today to defend ourselves today against the ongoing theft by the government, because we have the human right to self defense, but somehow that right isn't valid for the tax laws as long as there is a government.

It seems to me, not doing anything but wait until the ruling class abolishes itself would take way longer than I'm willing to let the ruling class get away with ignoring my human rights.

That would lead also to my other question, because letting them get away with the stealing for several more generations is identical to criminals getting away with their crimes if only they don't get caught (and shot) in the act.

 

So basically you asking how to get from A to B.  I have an answer.  And I'm going to be presenting it in the next video I do.  I'm working on it now.  A few things I want you to consider right now though.

 

1. You can vote in self-defense (this is consistent with the non-aggression principle) If you think a libertarian candidate will dismantle an entity that is using force against you, then by all means vote for that candidate.  
2. When someone has a gun pointing at them, they are not a moral agent any more.  Therefore, voting in self-defense is not anything to be morally concerned about.  (I'm still exploring this angle though)
3. Using force to deport illegal immigrants is legit because it involves defending property rights.  (This is highly contentious obviously, but I think I've got the logic behind it)
4. The more free a society is, the better ability it has to defend itself.  
5. Governments don't provide security, technology and happy productive people provides security.  Therefore, a government is not only ineffective when it comes to self-defense, but actually inhibits self-defense.  The less government, the more commerce, the more technology, the more superior in every way a society becomes (including self-defense)
6. Finally, change people voting habits by convincing them to vote differently.  Get them to vote libertarian.  This can only be done the long-hard way.

 

That's all I got for now.  I'm still working through a lot of the thinking though.  So those six bullet points might be a little premature.

[Thomasio]

Well, yes, I'd love to vote libertarian, yet there isn't any libertarian candidate.

In the US it's quite obvious, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, all authoritarians.

 

Here in Europe it's about the same, even though most countries have more than two parties, there's no real libertarian party.

Literally all governments in all of Europe are authoritarian right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

 

The closest we have to libertarians is actually the Left Party in Germany.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/germany2013

The FDP has been kicked out of parliament because their position on the right and slightly libertarian didn't even get them 5% of the votes and the Green Party always does a coalition with the SPD, which gives in the end an authoritarian result.

 

Furthermore, even though some parties in some European countries started out on the libertarian left wing, right wing authoritarians always abuse the power of their friends in the banking system, to block and blackmail any left wing libertarians into complying with authoritarian ideas, as they have done in Greece and Portugal and are about to do in Spain (where I'm not too sure, whether or not these left wingers were actually authoritarian left from start).

In short: Right wing libertarians do not exist in Europe and left wing libertarians are suppressed through blackmailing, so the suggestion to vote for a libertarian candidate, as good as it sounds, is just not possible.

Therefore changing peoples voting habits doesn't work either, because there is no possible libertarian vote to suggest.

 

Last but not least, you again have a sentence in there saying: "Using force to deport illegal immigrants is legit....", which right away leads to the same question again: Who shall finance that and how shall it be organized? Wouldn't organizing that already be a rudimentary form of government?

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your ideas of how to get from A to B.