lichess.org

Government Is Slavery

I did not call anyone anything. My quote word for word:

"Typical sentiment of the common dolt and coward, demonstrating complete ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills."

I was speaking of the sentiment you expressed as being cowardly and unintelligent. I stand by that. Your claim that me expressing this causes you "damage" is absurd, and I can in no way see how it does. Calling out stupid ideas as such DOES NOT constitute aggressive harm to another person, and the implication that it does indicates not only a lack of knowledge about what constitutes a violation of person or property (harm), but also delusional hyper-sensitivity.

When someone expresses similar criticism of my ideas, even if I don't agree, I APPRECIATE the person taking the time to share their genuine and honest thoughts about it with me.

You're welcome.


It is not my goal to harsh or hate on anyone. I do my utmost to hold love and good-will in my heart toward all beings, but too many people in this world are perpetuating the most heinous violence at almost unimaginable scale by way of their support, consent, and participation in government, and I am EXTREMELY PISSED OFF ABOUT IT. I have no patience for statism in any form at this point, and my big fat finger of shame is going to keep pointing at ANYONE and EVERYONE who does support or participate in the senseless insanity of government, or who holds, glorifies or defends its retarded ideology.

This is to help and heal, not to harm, though sometimes healing can be painful, as can be the truth when it rips away the comforting fallacies we delude ourselves with.

You are making so many dubious and outright wrong assumptions about the golden rule. Which comes first, harm principle or the golden rule? Is the violation of person for you a consequential or deontological ethical question? Golden rule does not contradict harming yourself or your property. It only says to treat others as you would like to be treated. The problem is how deeply you follow that principle and how much you consider other people as independent beings with their own preferences.

I'm stating that the golden rule belongs to deontological ethics, not consequential. Harm principle is consequential ethics. You can't have a principle and then rule out unnice instantiations by another principle.

> You are making so many dubious and outright wrong assumptions about the golden rule.

Such as? Would you mind producing a short list of at least some of the "so many assumptions" I'm wrong about... you failed to mention one. If your intent was that it should be obvious or implied, please spell it out for me, thank you.

>Which comes first, harm principle or the golden rule? Is the violation of person for you a consequential or deontological ethical question?

Why does it have to be either/or. The whole deontology question is hair splitting. The rules governing morality are based on whether an action causes harm (consequence). This brings up the question of intention, and the morality of "accidents" that cause harm, and therefore requires a more specified definition of "harm". In the discussion of morality, the simplest way to define harm is 'theft' in it's most expansive definition, which is characterized by taking the property of another or doing something to or with it without the owners consent... (rather than defining harm as any physical damage), this includes acts such as murder and rape. Consent is what the entire matter rests on, which is why the golden rule works... because no one wants things done to them or their property that they have not consented to.

Accidental harm that is the result of willful negligence (drunken vehicular manslaughter for instance) is also immoral, though less so than deliberate harm (running someone over or killing them on purpose), and this illustrates why morality is NOT just an either or issue, but one of degree.

Again, the golden rule cannot be seen as a license to do harm unto others just because one is deranged enough to believe that they want harmful actions (theft) performed upon them. It's rather a recognition of the UNIVERSAL desire to have one's rights, body, and property respected, and an appeal that if we claim the right to be respected ourselves in our rights, providing we are not violating others' rights, this is also declaring that such rights are universal.

>It only says to treat others as you would like to be treated. The problem is how deeply you
>follow that principle and how much you consider other people as independent beings with
>their own preferences.

What problem? Everyone has the right to have their property respected as regards their own preferences, not to dictate others' behavior toward them that is not a violation of them in any way, such as expressing an opinion about something they have said.

>I'm stating that the golden rule belongs to deontological ethics, not consequential.
>Harm principle is consequential ethics. You can't have a principle and then rule out
>unnice instantiations by another principle.

I'm saying that harm principle and deontological ethics are not necessarily incompatible in practice, depending on how the rules are defined, and furthermore, hair splitting about whether to classify the golden rule one way or the other is an irrelevant digression. I do not understand to what you refer by implying I have "ruled out unnice instantiations by another principle". Clarify please. Thanks.

Expressing what I think and calling out stupidity where I see it is not a violation of morality by any reasonable standard, whether using the harm principle consequentially, or a deontological view of the golden rule. IT DOESN'T MATTER. The point is the same, I caused no harm in consequence and violated no rule upon which a code of ethics could reasonably be based.


"Such as? Would you mind producing a short list of at least some of the "so many assumptions" I'm wrong about... you failed to mention one."

#28 two first paragraphs. Your whole view to the golden rule as somewhat Millian question of property rights.


"Why does it have to be either/or."

Because if it's a principle, you can't choose randomly how to apply it. If I am ok with certain kind of behavior but harm principle says no, what shall I do? Or vice versa. Or, should I strive for making others enjoy (utilitarianism, i.e. consequences) or should I focus on them as reasonable, moral agents? Is it ok to hurt other people's feelings intentionally just for the laughs when no harm follows, or should I respect other people and not delight in their misery?


"Consent is what the entire matter rests on, which is why the golden rule works... because no one wants things done to them or their property that they have not consented to."

You mean bad things.


>The problem is how deeply you 
"What problem?"

The problem of what's the right thing to do and how one can believe to follow the golden rule yet do wrong.


"I do not understand to what you refer by implying I have "ruled out unnice instantiations by another principle".

Punching other people. First you said it's ok for you to be harsh because that's what you would hope yourself. Then I said how about punching. Then you introduced the harm principle.


What is important is that the tone you discussed earlier (dolt, coward, imbecile) will turn many wiser people away. They will not waste their time explaining how you are wrong.

>#28 two first paragraphs. Your whole view to the golden rule as somewhat Millian question of property rights.

I'm apologize if I'm dense but this sentence makes no sense to me, I cannot discern your point or that you have listed any false assumptions I have made, much less explained why they are incorrect. If you have a point here, please make it clearly.

>Because if it's a principle, you can't choose randomly how to apply it.

Nothing has been "randomly applied". So again you are confusing me as to your point. There is clear criteria for what constitutes moral violations, and it boils down to violating people's consent regarding their property rights, every time. There is no random selection.

> If I am ok with certain kind of behavior but harm principle says no, what shall I do?

It is all about the principles, your whim regarding what you are "ok" with means nothing except to the extent that your whims are aligned with the moral principle. You are NOT ok with having your human rights violated (violating harm principle), not if you are being honest with yourself, and therefore cannot justify any such aggression against others.

Trying to interpret the golden rule as meaning it's ok to do whatever your whim says is ok is an obvious and heinous mis-interpretation of its meaning.... it's not meant to justify morality based on whim, (moral relativism) but as a guide to understanding the objective basis for the principle of morality through the faculty of being able to relate with universal principles, and having empathy for others and extending the same respect that one (and all) naturally wish to be applied to themselves.

>Or vice versa. Or, should I strive for making others enjoy (utilitarianism, i.e. consequences)
> or should I focus on them as reasonable, moral agents?

I do not understand this question. The only "should" I have for you is followed by a "not"... you should not violate others' rights. The rest is up to you and I won't presume to tell you what you should or should not do beyond this.

>Is it ok to hurt other people's feelings intentionally just for the laughs
>when no harm follows, or should I respect other people and not delight in their misery?

Placing responsibility for "hurt feelings" on another party besides the hurt party is retarded. If the "hurt" feelings are the result of an actual violation of that person's natural right's then they have cause for complaint, not about their feelings but about the immoral actions of the perpetrator. If the feelings are not based on some violation of the person's natural rights then that person is a snowflake and needs to thicken their skin and quit being so sensitive.

I would also point out that I did not, and do not purposely insult or offend people "for laughs". If I state something it is with the purpose of expressing what I genuinely believe to be true, and my purpose is edification... and I'm acting in the exact same way I would hope people would inform me if they thought I was so ignorant. I value what people truly think, even if they think I'm an idiot (I just want to know why so I can evaluate if there is anything to it), and very much appreciate people having the courage to tell me bluntly, and stand by their truth even if it is uncomfortable for me to hear. On the other hand I don't appreciate when people are insulting "for kicks" and it's usually quite easy to discern the difference.

Voting is the true "micro-aggression", not being willing to offend people with the truth, which is among the most noble of acts.


>You mean bad things.

Bad things are bad because they violate other person's property or person against their consent. There are no other "bad things".

>The problem is how deeply you
"What problem?"

>The problem of what's the right thing to do and how one can believe to follow the golden rule yet do wrong.

I did nothing wrong, I advocate the golden rule. I still fail to see the problem.

>"I do not understand to what you refer by implying I have "ruled out unnice instantiations by another principle".

>Punching other people. First you said it's ok for you to be harsh because
>that's what you would hope yourself. Then I
>said how about punching. Then you introduced the harm principle.

You lost me again. Let me be clear: punching people: bad. Speaking truth to ignorance and stupidity: good. This is perfectly consistent and no "instantiations" have been randomly "ruled out".

>What is important is that the tone you discussed earlier (dolt, coward, imbecile)
>will turn many wiser people away. They will not waste their time explaining how you are wrong.

While I appreciate your advice, I beg to differ. My tone is what I think is appropriate considering the level of violence I see happening in the world which I understand to be caused by the belief in authority and participation in government. I will maintain harsh and scornful tones for anyone who advocates such insanity. If you don't like it, that's too bad.

I use to think as you do, but I realized it is easier to ignore someone when they are soft spoken and coddling of others irrational sensitivities. I'll tell you what you can do with that PC snowflake "oh never ever OFFEND people!" BS... How about this: quit being irrationally offended by actions which cause no harm.

I take pride in the fact that it is not easy to offend me. You have to try really, really hard to do that, because I understand that the words of a stranger, or even most people I know for that matter do not warrant disturbance to one's peace of mind. Acts of actual violence, however, do; and that is why I am not "peaceful" in my discussion of this topic with people who choose to defend or glorify the state in any way, and I will continue to call out such blatant stupidity whenever I see it.

I'm sorry, I meant post #29.
All in all, you have different kinds of principles:
1) treat others as you would like to be treated
2) don't violate consent, and maybe
3) do not inflict harm.

That you identify these as one and the same is just your hypothesis, to which punching is just one counter-example. That's why I ask how do you decide between them.

For example, 1 might give you positive commands, like "give flowers!" or "smile" or "help if someone is in trouble". But 2 only says "don't do anything to anyone without their consent", and 3 says "do not harm other people or their property".

People have differing preferences and yet while you would like to be told rudely when you are being an idiot, someone else would think they mustn't be arrogant because they might err too. Now, you are saying you will treat others as you would like to be treated, i.e. scorned. But on a wider perspective you could think "I want to be treated with a recognition of my preferences so I will have to treat others recognizing their preferences."

>All in all, you have different kinds of principles:
>1) treat others as you would like to be treated
>2) don't violate consent, and maybe
>3) do not inflict harm.

These are not different, but rather different ways of expressing the same thing, when they are properly understood and the correct definitions applied, and I believe considering them together and integrating their meaning into a singular principle is the best way to understand their true meaning.

"Treat others as you would like to be treated" - No one wants their consent violated as regards their property and person. The golden rule cannot be interpreted 100% literally, but rather the "spirit of the law" that must be understood, and I think the negative version of it is actually a better guide for literal interpretation: "don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself".... in other words you are not OBLIGATED to give everyone flowers just because you might want to receive flowers. The golden rule needs some common sense interpretation, rather that as a literal set-in-stone, letter-of-the-law rule.

"Don't violate consent" - This is the core principle, but it needs to specify that it is in regards to one's property. I may not consent for you to eat cheerios or post what you think in this forum, but my "consent" to these activities is meaningless because they do not have anything to do with my property.

"Harm", as I mentioned previously, must be defined as "theft" when it comes to to topic of morality, which again, the primary issue is the violation of consent regards to property.

As many other thinkers have noted, the entire matter of moral imperative can be summed up neatly in a two word rule:

Don't steal.

One of the best presentations on this topic to clarify all of this is Mark Passio's Natural Law Presentation:

This one is more brief and concise:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isb83V89iFA

This is the complete presentation:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAJX8fy5dng



>People have differing preferences and yet while you would like to be told
>rudely when you are being an idiot,

Yes, I would. I don't consider bluntness to necessarily be rudeness, and at times, yes it is appropriate.

>someone else would think they mustn't
>be arrogant because they might err too.

Calling people out bluntly on their stupid advocacy of VIOLENCE is perhaps not driven by arrogance, but by a deep CARE for people... namely the ones getting violated.

>Now, you are saying you will treat
>others as you would like to be treated, i.e. scorned. But on a wider perspective
>you could think "I want to be treated with a recognition of my preferences so I
>will have to treat others recognizing their preferences."

I do like my preferences considered, and as a rule I do try to consider others' preferences as well. But when it comes to advocating government or any other form of violence or slavery, I have absolutely zero respect for any "preference" not to be told harshly how fucked up that is, and if that is considered arrogance, so be it.

Reconnecting