Evictionism

I really liked Walter Block's video on evictionism: I like it mostly because it exposes that, in an ideal world, the right to life/right to body (choice) debate would be a false dilemma (fallacy). I disliked Walter's focus on when it's "ok" to kill an unborn child (it's never ok - though I thought otherwise before I learned about evictionism). However, it may be ok to evict a baby; I consider rape an obvious case for this, consensual sex is harder to justify (though I agree you can't form a contract with the unborn). In my head, the procedure would go:

• woman tells doctor she doesn't want baby
• doctor performs procedures as though a wanted child was in danger and needed to be delivered prematurely
• child is placed in (donation/charity funded) medical care (possibly an "artificial womb")
• the child is made available for adoption

At no point is the baby intentionally killed.

Reconciling Maslow's Hierarchy with Libertarianism

SUMMARY

One of the key breakthroughs of libertarianism is the acceptance of the non-aggression principle (NAP), which states that one may not morally initiate aggression against another. The NAP focuses on violent force, however, this principle may be applied to other areas of man's existence. Maslow's hierarchy of needs (MHN) attempts to generalize man's priorities. Combined with Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) and praexology, the author argues for a more encompassing moral framework which satisfies the iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD) through the moral argument “let the punishment fit the crime” (LPFC).

ELLABORATION

Within each man lies a personal utopia, a nirvana where moral action is rewarded. Maslow has described priorities which must be satisfied for man to bring their utopia into existence. Part of that pyramid requires interaction with others, however, not all action is mutually rewarding. The most unrewarding of human interaction is one where the parties are threatened at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid: a conflict to the death. Assuming the conflict is not instantaneous, it may be trivially described by the IPD. Analysis of the IPD has led to “tit for tat with forgiveness” (TFTWF) as an ideal solution. TFTWF means that if I initiate an interaction, I start off with a (trivial) agreement move, and don't respond negatively unless met with a negative move (note the parallel with the NAP). If my “opponent” gives a negative move I return with a negative move. However, this leads to a prolonged negative spiral if the opponents continue with negative moves. Instead, researchers found that a random positive move could break the spiral, improving the outcome for all parties. This situation has been expressed by Ghandi with, “an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind”, and in the Christian doctrine with, “turn the other cheek”.

However, life is not trivial. People don't make “positive moves”. Culture differences and personal preferences alone make this difficult. Further, moves have different weights for individuals, and generally within a community. In western cultures these weights are usually expressed through laws, mores and folkways, and these prioritized social norms with their associated punishments roughly correspond to MHN in a tit for tat relationship; murder has a death penalty, offensive language may be met with ostracism. This is tit for tat, with the level of punishment on the same level as the offense; in case of murder the punishment is a mirrors the offense and is ostensibly equal, however, the offensive language is met with an asymmetrical punishment but at the same level of the hierarchy.

What goals may be morally pursued in the context of conflict? A cessation of the conflict, remedy for victims, and rehabilitation of offending parties are all viable. We have already discussed conflict cessation in terms of TFTWF and MHN: one may not act initially with willful aggression, and may morally attack any target of the opponent's at the same or higher level in the hierarchy. However, one is only rational to attack if attacking that target will accomplish one of the viable goals. It may be in the offended party's self-interest to “forgive” if no goal can be accomplished by retaliating, especially if forgiveness move has a probability of returning the parties to win/win. Retaliation may also lie on a continuum, where partial forgiveness is possible. For example, a spendthrift might get partial debt forgiveness, possibly in return for taking a class on finance (rehabilitation).

What you don't want, is for the tit for tat negative spiral that occurs on one level of the hierarchy to plunge the opponents into the next level down. This is where a conflict over gift registry leads to calling the wedding off, and then a crime of passion. Not good.

WHAT ABOUT STARVATION?

So what happens when Joe steals Mike's food because Joe is starving? That's a violation of the NAP (private property). While Mike would be moral taking something of value from Joe, starving people rarely have much of value to take. Instead, rehabilitating Joe with the expectation of remedy may be a more rational choice. LPFC and TFTWF are satisfied; and I would argue this is the best strategy to take when the need levels are crossed: when need levels are crossed in the case where the offending party has violated a higher need, forgiveness, rehabilitation, and remedy are the most appropriate course of action.

A more sinister problem is violent wealth redistribution. Ignoring problems such as corruption, property rights, and the praexological strategy of the assisted, can the act be considered moral? No. In part, because the act threatens a low level of the hierarchy on someone who would provide the charity at a higher level (charity occurs at high levels of the MHN). The violation of Mike's hierarchy at a low level keeps him from reaching a level where he would give willingly; instead demolishing higher levels and engendering the desperation associated with providing for the new lower level. This leads to a society of embittered, desperate, resentful people, instead of the giving society it claims to foster.

liberty links

• the philosophy of liberty


• george ought to help


• the non-aggression principle


• the road to serfdom


• rothbard


• free domain radio


• the daily paul


• libertarian subreddit


• lew rockwell


• peter schiff's libertarian news blog


• ron paul friends/campaign for liberty


• max keiser


• mises.org


• free talk live


• what really happened


• no agenda


• max igan


• school sucks

stefan molyneux at porcfest - we are still here

statism is slavery

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2011/05/statism-is-slavery.html

undermining maslow: towards an ethical framework with variables

i am super happy that i found the nap (non-aggression principle). it was the missing piece between aggression and pacifism that reconciled the positions of my ww2 grandfather and hippie (but ironically abusive) father. i recognize, however, that the nap can and will only even be a consideration once a person has climbed high enough up maslow's hierarchy. imo, it's unreasonable to expect a starving person to not steal bread - though you may still consider it immoral (i do). the greater immorality lies in the person who is not starving but steals bread, anyway. so here we have the problem of binary thinking when a continuum of sorts seems more appropriate

(i need something here - supporting/elaborating/expanding - but i'm lazy and don't have it flushed out, sorry)

anyhoo. when that institution of violence know as the state steps in, it undermines the nap of one individual to build up the base of the other. in other words, you're forcing the person who produced bread to now have to worry about his security

higher up on maslow's needs lies a ditty known as charity. this is where individuals give out bread to the starving willingly. so whereas, when the state redistributes bread we are destroying pyramids, with this method we are placing the capstone

now i just need to find someone smart to write a treatise on appropriate methods (defensive violence, ostracism, etc - and possibly sompin' about laws and mores) for each level, and interactions of individuals on different levels - while respecting the individual

course, if i could finish stefbot's (stefan molyxlzxjcajneu) UPB (universally preferable behavior) it might be in there

Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

from http://www.dailypaul.com/163078/awesome-10min-fight-of-the-century-keynes-vs-hayek
http://econstories.tv
http://www.billyandadam.com

if i was a woman, i'd sooo let max keiser do me

course, stacy might get jealous


also, see his work on rt


he should team up with bill black and form a dynamic duo. bill would have to be robin. sorry, bill

is the tipping point coming?

in Atlas Shrugged a quality railroad engineer is replaced with a "yes man" and this leads to a tragedy for the train passengers (one of whom forced out the quality engineer)

the US fabric has largely been replaced with yes men, and has thus lost its integrity. the "go along to get along" mentality is sending lemmings over a cliff - don't get caught up with them

tragically, there's nothing like vulnerable nuclear reactors (made by GE, btw) to highlight the incompetence and tragedy that forced relations bring. tyranny - it just doesn't pay what it used to

just kill the goose instead of waiting for the eggs and see what that gets you

writing the future

our narrative has been hijacked. our potential has been chained to true/false and multiple choice. we find ourselves now with a pen and blank paper, able to reclaim the story and write our own future. don't carelessly gamble yours and let them win your future from you

the multiheaded hydra, aka - all roads lead to rome

i don't like the idea of class warfare, but as buffet noted (i paraphrase) "there is class warfare and my class is winning"

if you are a socialist, there is a socialist icon in your movement who is "owned". if you're a libertarian - same thing. conservative? - you betcha. progressive? gimme a break. lennin described this strategy and it works

the big boys don't take a side, they take all sides. controlled opposition has been the name of the game since the communists partnered with the socialists in post wwi germany to isolate the political contest between the two parties. when don king represents both fighters, he wins regardless

further, if you trust in a socialist system, they'll come along and privatize your retirement in the name of capitalism. if you own your own business, they tax it or take it over by the gov in the name of socialism. by changing the rules they guarantee a way to fleece you. you don't know whether you're playing high hand or low hand until after they've seen all the cards

argh

wisconsin: the state ouroboros

let's say that all workers in wisconsin were part of a (the) public union ... including the governor. and all these workers are paing tax. so, they'd be protesting the gov (of which they are a part) to force themselves to pay themselves more. 'course, right now there's still a bit of a private sector there - but the more the private sector is taxed, the less it will exist, until the delivery boy at pizza hut has to pay for the whole shebang

ron paul is the *only* republican who can win

i have to join the chorus rebutting trump. ron paul is the only person i will vote for as president. if he does not run, i will draft him; if he is not on the ballot i will write him in. the only reason he will not be president is if republican infighting stops him. he is the only republican who can beat obama, and he will beat obama if he's the republican nominee; and he will do it on the same platform he has run on his entire political career. he's the only person who truly deserves the presidency

ideas pit against themselves aka the heliocentric dillemma: anarchy, individualism, self-interest, darwinism

we exist socially (interdependently). when we talk about things like "self-interest" it *can sound* like - "i don't have your back". what's ironic is that, most people discussing these things want to empower/free/help the person they are discussing them with. so in a very strange twist in reality, discussing self-interest is an act of (randian) altruism. and because of this paradox you will likely never hear a person practising self-interest self-identify - the exception would be if they value you (tremendously)

the next bubble: green tech and failure

Ron Paul recently had a subcommittee hearing where they discussed the fed's impact on unemployment. about halfway through the economists were asked what the next bubble would be in

my opinion, you ask? we're already seeing a bubble in commodities. what's coming? they said it usually occurs in industries with a lot of confusing innovation ... how often have you heard "green jobs" and "green tech". there are jobs around here for carbon trading. that's an industry that destroys wealth and prosperity. unemployment benefits stimulates unemployment - aka failure - but this is worse: we're paying people to make viable industries fail. and even for those green jobs that seem viable - they're being artificially supported, which means they're part of the overall malinvestment indicative of a bubble

seasteading idea

i've become a fan of the seasteading movement. personally, i enjoy land too much

anyway, they could use the pacific garbage island as building material

• it floats


• it's free


• it's already on location


• there's lots of it


• it's green (reduce, reuse, recycle)

you just need a compactor to make the floating block sizes uniform, some big zip ties; and a big boat until the first sustainable structure is formed

i for one welcome our new chinese overloards

total rant alert

we may transition from a totalitarian production hating nation to a totalitarian production loving nation. at least that's a move in the right direction

my understanding has been that the chinese strategy has been to acquire technology (means) and produce products more efficiently in a highly controlled system. this removes the r&d cost from production. and this is why they are a manufacturing powerhouse. but ideas for products still originate elsewhere (like the US). why? well imho, it's cuz of our history of freedom. the free market and free people create a wealth of ideas, which then improves competition in the marketplace of ideas - which makes human life more better. but it requires freedom, and freedom isn't free. so, as this situation persists we will continue to see the arbitrage of ideas from the (somewhat) free market to the (mostly) captured market and we'll see calcification, stagnation, and oppression

so, what to do? guard r&d. produce!

oh, and i been thinking that collectivism is good for one thing - group violence. and it's already pervasive and effective in the armed forces. kinda want a one for all attitude there - probably shouldn't change that. that's why those institutions should retain their main mandate: to defend the constitution (a document which was intended to shine freedom through parchment) at minimal cost. to fund the military i recommend a tax on matter at market value (ala geo-libertarianism) which would help insure efficient use of resources. but, imo, we need to cut everything outside of Nozic's night watchman state

oh, and afghanistan is prolly really about fighting china. and china is prolly using tibet as a buffer against india - which is why it's a sore topic. i have some info to suggest that those problems in northern mexico & arizona are the russian/chinese response. and that's why the cia is in the drug business, and that it's illegal. if it's illegal, the gov can easily confiscate any drugs that are not sanctioned by the gov. if they didn't sell them, or make them illegal it would make the gov less strategically viable. that is - if it's not just because they're rotten to the core

energy everywhere

i keep hearing rumors about a new energy solution and i just wanted to rant on it; though i don't have much

there's energy everywhere. mass is energy ala e=mc^2, so you and everything you're in contact with holds immense energy. currently, nuclear reactions are the only way we know of to harness that energy which has rare reactants and severe consequences. but there's energy everywhere: the sun, the gravitational pull of the moon and its effects on tides, waves, wind, thermal, terrestrial and extraterrestrial electromagnetic power including lightning. there's even plenty of the existing legacy energy sources (hydro, coal, oil, natural gas)

there are problems, though, with harnessing, transporting, and translating energy. take hydro - potential energy stored in water is translated to kinetic energy, translated to electric energy by a generator in a dam, then translated to sound and light energy by your bube tube. instead, you could just have a little nuclear reactor built into your tv and never need to plug in

my understanding is that tesla had learned how to transmit energy around the globe and harness it anywhere - and wanted to give receivers to the people (or give the building instructions away for free). my guess is that we can find a way to harness energy already propagating around the world, possibly store it in batteries, and use it as we like

update: we'll probably also soon see genetically modified bacteria and/or yeast that break down common waste or matter (eg poor soil), optionally using (modified) photosynthesis, to produce an easily combustible hydrocarbon (natural gas, oil, etc). they'll probably start with plastic

bulls make money, bears make money

if you're a bull, eventually you'll be right. ditto for bears. the bears have it right now - and for good reason. but if history holds, it is in the depths of a downturn where, if you have the wherewithal to start a new business - you may see the most success. however, knowing that may be delaying people (esp gov) from making the changes needed to allow us to get back on track

my parents wanted me to be a doctor. one of the common sayings i heard from doctors was, "you have to hurry up and cure them before they get better on their own". sticking leeches on, or blood letting makes sense in that context - you get credited with the remedy even when making the situation worse. and that's what, imo, we're seeing right now. some folks expecting the economy to get better because it should be able to heal itself, while others see that the gov is sticking more leeches on, recommending letting another litre of blood, and charging the patient extra for the service. this one may not make it, and anyone who sees bears but pre-emptively predicts and plans for a bull - well they're pigs, and we know what happens to them

Renaissance 2.0 - must watch

from celente