It seems I am forced to listen to the same tired arguments over and over again.
The problem is that an abused monkey can't see the violence. This should not be a difficult exercise, but we will go through the one issue at a time. Instead of towing party lines meant to confuse the monkey, the monkey needs to analyze the issues objectively.
Before reading this, it may be important to see the previous blog Defining Your Terms . To reiterate, property is just the right to control physical resources (including your own body), and violence is some action against property. Self defense is complicated, but should only a response to initiation. Also, less violence is generally better than more. If you can't agree on this, then you can either refute (below) with something hopefully coherent, or preferably, go troll someone else's blog.
So I'd like to propose my own attempt at these issues. I may be swayed, of course, but I've thought quite a bit about these. Topic headers borrowed from (http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/). There are others, but I thought this was a fairly comprehensive list.
I will be creating a blog to make statements on each of these subjects, and linking them from here when I am finished:
Abortion
Afirmative Action
Death Penalty
Economy
Education
Energy
Euthanasia
Global Warming/Climate Change
Gun Control
Healthcare
Homeland Security
Immigration
Private Property
Religion
Same-Sex Marriage
Social Security
Taxes
United Nations (UN)
Terrorism
Welfare
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Define Your Terms! (Two in Particular...)
In this blog, I hope to start pissing people off very soon.
But before doing that, we will have to established some prior principled assumptions. Blaise Pascal, Voltaire, and others expressed the need to "define your terms", and so we shall to do just that for two simple terms. I will not attempt to create formal definitions (those can be found elsewhere), but simply discuss the terms and logical fallacies surrounding them.
Property
Property is typically defined as something "owned". But what does this mean, to own something? To own something is the right, or the privilege, perhaps exclusive, perhaps shared, to control a resource. It may certainly be possible to share ownership, but only if the terms of dispute are resolvable by contract. So the idea of "everybody" owning a single item is certainly a mathematical possibility, but a practical nightmare. A resource owned by "everybody" really means that it is owned by no one, or more specifically, that it is owned by those few who have propagandized everyone to pass themselves off as the arbiters of the "greater good" (i.e. bureaucrats).
When Marxists say that "all property is theft", they may have an interesting point to some small degree. But saying that we can add one more act of thievery such as the transfer of property to a state is hardly a solution to the theft problem. And besides, you own your own body, do you not? Is ownership of your own body theft? No. Your body is your property, and unless you are dead, you will always have the best claim to it. This concept of "best claim" to one's own body also has the added benefit of rendering slavery invalid.
If you are going to argue, "well... OK. You own your own body but you can't own, say... land." Ok, then what do you own? Do you own your toothbrush, or can I take it clean my toilet with it? This can be extended to other things, your clothes, your home, your car, and so on.
Do you own your children? No. As mentioned above, an individual has best claim to himself. However, in the case of a child, the parent has proxy responsibility for that child until he is old enough to support and care for himself. I happen to believe that putting an arbitrary age on this (such as 18) is also invalid, but perhaps that is a discussion for another day. In short, for some children that age may be as young as 12, but for others, well... they may never reach that point.
Property exists, and you own stuff. Even Mr. Marx does not want his toothbrush used to clean any toilets, so yes, Mr. Marx -- you your arguments are simply self-contradictory.
Violence
If we do not define violence, we cannot see it. All crimes are crimes against property (defined above). If you are physically attacked, it is a violation of your personal property, specifically your body. If I initiate violence, or the threat of it, then I am at fault. If I respond to an act of violence with violence, then it may be called self-defense.
People will ask: So, then for self-defense, what is the appropriate proportionality of violence to respond to the initiation of violence? This is not an easy question, but I think it may suffice to say that less violence is better than more, is it not? Therefore, if I can fend off a violent offender such as a mugger with a water hose (which I would not recommend, but for the sake of argument), we may consider it to be preferable to shooting him. After all, he could be mentally ill, and so on. There are of course counter-arguments to this, that the criminal will attack someone else, etc. etc., but I without going into all of these complexities, I think we can agree that if we were to know in advance that violence can be stopped with violence, then less violence would be better than more. In self defense, the purpose of violence is to stop the original act of violence, not to punish or deter the assailant of future action. The reason I say that is for many reasons, but we can start with the utilitarian argument that excessive violence will not actually obtain those goals of ending further violence. If you disagree with this, go away. This blog is probably not for you.
I also contend that complete non-violence, or pacifism, although idealistic and perhaps even preferable, is not a realistic option in many cases. Take the water hose, for example. If the criminal does not run away when sprayed with cold water, he may just get pissed and kill you. So yeah, in that case pacifism was a dumb idea.
And there we go! We defined two terms. If you disagree with any of the arguments, I'd love to hear it (assuming you are one of the rare individuals out there capable of making rational arguments). Or, you could show up and say something incoherent, and that could be entertaining as well.
But before doing that, we will have to established some prior principled assumptions. Blaise Pascal, Voltaire, and others expressed the need to "define your terms", and so we shall to do just that for two simple terms. I will not attempt to create formal definitions (those can be found elsewhere), but simply discuss the terms and logical fallacies surrounding them.
Property
Property is typically defined as something "owned". But what does this mean, to own something? To own something is the right, or the privilege, perhaps exclusive, perhaps shared, to control a resource. It may certainly be possible to share ownership, but only if the terms of dispute are resolvable by contract. So the idea of "everybody" owning a single item is certainly a mathematical possibility, but a practical nightmare. A resource owned by "everybody" really means that it is owned by no one, or more specifically, that it is owned by those few who have propagandized everyone to pass themselves off as the arbiters of the "greater good" (i.e. bureaucrats).
When Marxists say that "all property is theft", they may have an interesting point to some small degree. But saying that we can add one more act of thievery such as the transfer of property to a state is hardly a solution to the theft problem. And besides, you own your own body, do you not? Is ownership of your own body theft? No. Your body is your property, and unless you are dead, you will always have the best claim to it. This concept of "best claim" to one's own body also has the added benefit of rendering slavery invalid.
If you are going to argue, "well... OK. You own your own body but you can't own, say... land." Ok, then what do you own? Do you own your toothbrush, or can I take it clean my toilet with it? This can be extended to other things, your clothes, your home, your car, and so on.
Do you own your children? No. As mentioned above, an individual has best claim to himself. However, in the case of a child, the parent has proxy responsibility for that child until he is old enough to support and care for himself. I happen to believe that putting an arbitrary age on this (such as 18) is also invalid, but perhaps that is a discussion for another day. In short, for some children that age may be as young as 12, but for others, well... they may never reach that point.
Property exists, and you own stuff. Even Mr. Marx does not want his toothbrush used to clean any toilets, so yes, Mr. Marx -- you your arguments are simply self-contradictory.
Violence
If we do not define violence, we cannot see it. All crimes are crimes against property (defined above). If you are physically attacked, it is a violation of your personal property, specifically your body. If I initiate violence, or the threat of it, then I am at fault. If I respond to an act of violence with violence, then it may be called self-defense.
People will ask: So, then for self-defense, what is the appropriate proportionality of violence to respond to the initiation of violence? This is not an easy question, but I think it may suffice to say that less violence is better than more, is it not? Therefore, if I can fend off a violent offender such as a mugger with a water hose (which I would not recommend, but for the sake of argument), we may consider it to be preferable to shooting him. After all, he could be mentally ill, and so on. There are of course counter-arguments to this, that the criminal will attack someone else, etc. etc., but I without going into all of these complexities, I think we can agree that if we were to know in advance that violence can be stopped with violence, then less violence would be better than more. In self defense, the purpose of violence is to stop the original act of violence, not to punish or deter the assailant of future action. The reason I say that is for many reasons, but we can start with the utilitarian argument that excessive violence will not actually obtain those goals of ending further violence. If you disagree with this, go away. This blog is probably not for you.
I also contend that complete non-violence, or pacifism, although idealistic and perhaps even preferable, is not a realistic option in many cases. Take the water hose, for example. If the criminal does not run away when sprayed with cold water, he may just get pissed and kill you. So yeah, in that case pacifism was a dumb idea.
And there we go! We defined two terms. If you disagree with any of the arguments, I'd love to hear it (assuming you are one of the rare individuals out there capable of making rational arguments). Or, you could show up and say something incoherent, and that could be entertaining as well.
Void Boundary Book 1: The Axelon Monocracy
Void Boundary Book 1: The Axelon Monocracy is a book about a civilization disconnected from its true past, and slowly approaching its own end of life. It is surrounded by smaller civilizations, many comprised of new ideas, some arbitrary in nature, and one civilization that is distinctly... Axelon. Neil Gant is reborn into this part of the galaxy, displaced from all things familiar to him, and we see much of it through his own experiences. He begins his new life accompanied by the Authority, as they take on an enemy that is unhuman, an dbecoming smarter by the minute.
In his travels with Artinemas, Neil will see many new things.
This first installment of the Void Boundary series begins on Brekosha, beyond what the Milex know as Boundary. Neil visits 4 planets: Brekosha, Kantomar, Isomar, and is even one of the first to experience the Axelon life, but not as himself. He must walk the Axelon home world in disguise, as an anthropologist. He must learn to speak like them, to fit in, as they do. He must become Axelon.
To be Axelon is to fit in, to rarely disagree, to never be rejected, to hate and to love exactly as everyone around does. Is this misery as it sounds, or is it bliss? Read the book and decide.
which is introduced as a political border at first, but will later become something more significant.
I hope readers enjoy this book half as much as I enjoyed writing it. I hope to be able to start the second installment soon.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
The Internet Archaeologists
The internet is full of all kinds of shit no one cares about.
Take, for example, this blog entry. A rant about how the net piles up with excrement, to be pretty much ignored by everyone, except perhaps hundreds of years later, if the data still exists (much of it will through various mechanisms of cloud redundancy), when the future internet archaeologists are digging through the tripe, analyzing every bit, putting the pieces together, trying to reassemble the psyche of the late-20th and early 21st centuries.
"They used to worship this man nailed to a letter T," they will think, "but at that time, they started converting to a polytheistic religion called Marvel Universe." Though they will have much more information than we do about the middle ages, they will still likely get the details all wrong. This will be comical, if we could see it for ourselves.
They will sift through this old data, with their own computers to assist, analyze it backward and forward, make connections. They will know who your friends were, who you called, who you worked for, how much you made, what you purchased, what you believed. Each subsequent generation will use new technologies to gain a clearer picture of who you are, right now. Yes, you - sitting in that chair.
They will adjust their interpretation of you to meet their agenda. They will put forward the pieces of you that make others believe what they want them to think about you, and thus about their own past and identity. They will erase other pieces, or perhaps the bits that suggest that you were virtuous or good, or that you were cruel and primitive.
The data will paint a picture. And for most us, it is all that will remain.
So the next time you are trolling on YouTube, or spewing vitriol on Facebook, or saying something really dumb, stop. Think. You are recording in the halls of history, who you are. You are painting your eternal legacy.
And for so many of us, it is not the legacy we would like to have.
Take, for example, this blog entry. A rant about how the net piles up with excrement, to be pretty much ignored by everyone, except perhaps hundreds of years later, if the data still exists (much of it will through various mechanisms of cloud redundancy), when the future internet archaeologists are digging through the tripe, analyzing every bit, putting the pieces together, trying to reassemble the psyche of the late-20th and early 21st centuries.
"They used to worship this man nailed to a letter T," they will think, "but at that time, they started converting to a polytheistic religion called Marvel Universe." Though they will have much more information than we do about the middle ages, they will still likely get the details all wrong. This will be comical, if we could see it for ourselves.
They will sift through this old data, with their own computers to assist, analyze it backward and forward, make connections. They will know who your friends were, who you called, who you worked for, how much you made, what you purchased, what you believed. Each subsequent generation will use new technologies to gain a clearer picture of who you are, right now. Yes, you - sitting in that chair.
They will adjust their interpretation of you to meet their agenda. They will put forward the pieces of you that make others believe what they want them to think about you, and thus about their own past and identity. They will erase other pieces, or perhaps the bits that suggest that you were virtuous or good, or that you were cruel and primitive.
The data will paint a picture. And for most us, it is all that will remain.
So the next time you are trolling on YouTube, or spewing vitriol on Facebook, or saying something really dumb, stop. Think. You are recording in the halls of history, who you are. You are painting your eternal legacy.
And for so many of us, it is not the legacy we would like to have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)