Archive for the Free-thought Category

Nonpropertarianism (A Truly Free Market)

Posted in Anarchy, Communism, crime, discordianism, economics, Evolution, Free-thought, Leftism, Libertarianism, Nonpropertarian, Objectivism, Politics, property, resources, theory on March 16, 2011 by FЯEEDO

There are many Capitalists who boast a “free-market”. But what is it they mean by this phrase? What is “free” in their eyes? Surely they will tell you that it a system void of coercion, one of voluntary exchange. I am here to challenge that. Challenge, that is, that this “free-market” they espouse is really anything of the sort.

Even as a former Capitalist, the understanding escapes me how such an evident coercion could at the same time remain so well hidden. An infrastructure which, when recognized, makes even the Ayn Rand’s Minarchist state or the Ancap utopia to be known as an obvious planned and centralized regime but is also a central a theme to Socialism and other such ideologies beyond Capitalism.

I speak of the rule of property. So much bickering, there has been, between which form of this tyranny to have that none have found time to question the very underlining idea.

And I can hear the supposed “free-marketeers” now with their jeers of chaos. “There would be no order!”, they say “Shops would be looted every day with nothing to stop the looters!. Oh the shame. Are these not the same ones who herald the invisible hand of the market? Are these not the ones who, when confronted with an economic woe, would say that the market needs to be let to guide itself, to arrive at it’s naturally emergent balance out of the seemingly unguided chaos? I only offer you the same principle but to it’s actual ends. The degree to which the system has become decentralized and irregulated is the degree to which the natural evolutionary order may emerge. Now, I don’t know for certain how a Nonpropertarian economy would function but I have some fairly confident ideas of which I may discuss in this thread if the questions which require their discussion are posed.

Property is an inherently authoritarian concept, whether with it’s platform as labor, as needs, as collective ownership, or any other such formula for control. No “right” can be had without limiting the freedom of others to impose upon it, surely this is recognized. So the question is whether such a limitation is being imposed upon something which is anti-liberty. For if the liberty which the right limits is not anti-liberty than the right itself which limits this thing is in actuality the thing which is anti-liberty. So what does it mean posses something which has a claim by another, does it limit the liberty of the claimer? Surely, a person may find a reason to say that it does, for most objects have a political power of some kind when possessed. To take possession of water which one claims is to limit their freedom in consuming that water. So the Capitalist may take the tactic of pointing this out but it is really a half-witted move for they are blind to the fact that it is same vice-versa. The very person claiming the water in the first place is limiting the freedom of others to consume it, so this too is anti-liberty. So both sides are anti-liberty? That, too, is only half the story. For if a person were to claim something while no one else feels a need to do the same, who’s liberty is he infringing upon? Vice-versa, if one has a claim to a thing but has does not use it, what liberty is infringed by another taking his claim? But if both sides may be at some times anti-liberty and sometimes not, how are we to know how to maximize freedom? If only there were a way for the system to balance itself. Perhaps if we did not have this rule of making a claim to be imposed upon others, a solution might develop.

“So what..”, you say, “just get rid of property?”. “Ok, I’ll just go to your house and take all your stuff, how bout that?” To suddenly switch off the rule of property would indeed cause instantaneous disorder, panic and destruction. This is not the fault of this new Nonpropertarian environment, it is the example of something much more dangerous in a state of decay–the crumbling of the old and the construction of a new. Out of this chaos would evolve a new infrastructure for the allocation of resources, an infrastructure which can truly be called a free-market.

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward

Posted in Anarchy, Atheism, AWESOME, Capitalism, Christianity, Communism, conspiracy, crime, Defiance, economics, Environmentalism, Evolution, Experiment, Free-speech, Free-thought, futurism, God, happy, Health, Internet, Islam, Leftism, Libertarianism, LOGIC, medicine, Mind-control, Morality, Philosophy, police, Politics, Protesting, Psychology, Purpose, Quotes, Religion, resources, Science, Skepticism, Slavery, Socialism, theory, youtube, Zeitgeist on January 30, 2011 by FЯEEDO

This movie was by far my favorite of the three. There wasn’t actually anything I disagreed with this time. None of the religious conspiracy theories. I’m very impressed, I recommend you watch it.


Pseudophilosophy with Freedo

Posted in discordianism, Free-thought, HUMOR, Philosophy, Religion, strange, surreal on December 14, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Imaginary George: Freedo, what do you think happens when we die?

Freedo: Death is merely the realization that nothing exists.

George: But…that doesn’t make any sense…

Freedo: I apologize George, you need clarification. Allow me to take us back to another conversation I have had that may shine some light on this conundrum.

*waves hands around, imaginary portal appears*

——-flashback——–

Imaginary Steve: So Freedo, why do you think there is something as opposed to nothing?

Freedo: Perhaps a better question is “what’s the difference?”

Steve: Explain.

Freedo: We, in the something, ask ourselves “how did we come from nothing?” Well, I’m sure that those in the nothing are asking themselves the same question, except “how did we come from something?”.

To us the question is baffling but, when you think about it, there are probably a lot more things that don’t exist than those things which do…so it must be even MORE baffling for them.

Steve: Come on now, Freedo. Be serious for a change.

Freedo: Not so fast Steve! You may say “NOTHING IS NOTHING and SOMETHING IS SOMETHING, lets just leave it at that!” But humor me for a moment, perhaps the somethings are only real to other somethings and the nothings are only real to other nothings, but not to each other!

————————-

George: I see…..so..what you’re saying is that we become nothings when we die and it is in this sense that we “realize nothing exists” for the other nothings become real to us and the something that was before becomes the new nothing?

Freedo: Precisely.

George: Well….that is all very interesting but–

Imaginary Jack: May I interject into this conversation?

Freedo: Shut up Jack, you’re imaginary.

Jack: So is George. >_<

George: Wait, what? This is getting weird…

Freedo: That’s correct George, you see, you are one of those nothings I was speaking of. You had not realized this because, too you, I am the nothing.

George: That actually makes a lot of sense…I think I understand now.

Freedo: I have to go now. You’re a good man, George, I look forward to meeting you when I leave my somethings.

George: The same. Goodbye Freedo.

“The highest form of self awareness is realizing you’re just a character in someone else’s dream”

~ Anonymous

“What if you’re wrong and there really is a God”

Posted in Atheism, Christianity, Defiance, Free-thought, God, Quotes, Religion on November 5, 2010 by FЯEEDO

That was a question posed to me by a Christian.

My appalling reply:

“If it turns out there really is a God I would gladly ask to go to hell in some strange twist of half-deranged spitefulness towards God’s appearent kicks he would get out of striking fear into people’s hearts with his abusive ego, so large and infathomable, that it baffles even my own.”

Moral Nihilism

Posted in Anarchy, Atheism, Faith, Free-thought, happy, LOGIC, Morality, Nihilism, Philosophy, Purpose, Religion, Skepticism on October 23, 2010 by FЯEEDO

It has been my humble observation that many of the non-religious are confused with the topic of morality and ethics in how it would be rationally extended from their particular breed of reasoning. Don’t get me wrong, the religious aren’t the masters of logical consistency, but this is specifically directed towards the unbeknownst  confusion  asserted from those who claim the negation of faith. By confused I refer to internal inconsistency within their perspective. In this blog-post I will discuss how the rational extension of non-religiosity in regard to ethics leads to Nihilism.

Regardless of how unpleasant it may seem to refer to morality as an illusion, the intellectually-honest non-religious individual must do so in-order to hold internal consistency.

First, a definition of terms; morality and ethics is a description of values and behavior that one ought to have. It is not simply describing  behavior that is but rather behavior that ought to be.

To define ethics as simply a type of behavior in no way means that one ought to behave that way. The famous philosopher, David Hume, aptly pointed out that it is logically impossible to derive an ought from an is–or a value from a fact. So while you may define Altruism, compassion, and kindness as ethical behavior, you are really just describing a type of behavior that is, not one that ought to be.

It’s important to properly understand that ethics and morality is based on how things ought to be. To say giving food to the homeless is kind is completely different than saying that one ought to give food to the homeless. The statement that giving food to the homeless is kind, that is a fact. But to derive a value out of that, saying being kind is a value, that does not logically derive from the fact that giving food to the homeless is kind. You could also say the statement that beating up the homeless for fun is unkind is a fact–so would you then say that you ought to value being unkind, simply because it is a fact? No, all you are doing is stating facts and you’ll never get a value out of that. If someone kills another in cold-blood, it is a fact, it is what is whether or not one ought to have done it.

Now, remember, saying one ought to do this or do that is entirely different than the subjective statement of “I prefer to do this or that”. For example, I prefer water to soda but that does not mean I say one ought to drink water. A Nihilist may be reading this now who understands and agrees with everything I’ve written so far. Most likely they are  someone who would say “I prefer people to be kind” or “I strongly dislike killing”, but they acknowledge that as their own subjective preference and they don’t believe in any kind of morality. So subjective preference, of preferring things to be a certain way, is in no way at all what morality and ethics is about. In this sense, Nihilists are Egoists. The Egoist who says self-pleasure is moral has purely a semantical difference with Nihilism, in actuality there’s no difference in how they behave.

To pull morality out of a hat, to derive an ought from an is, requires some convoluted sense of faith. So if you’re an individual who claims to be non-religious and asserts no code of morality then, congratulations, your ethics are consistent with your reasoning which produced your rejection of faith.

I also find it necessary to point out two different attitudes of Nihilism; Passive and Active.

Passive Nihilism is indicative of a decline in a personal sense of control. It is characterized by the inability to create, or in the extreme to react. The Passive Nihilist is one who, when faced with the world’s uncertainty, withdraws and refuses to engage the world. For him, uncertainty is a sufficient condition not to proceed through life, and so paralyzed by fear of the unknown and unknowable he does nothing or even to the extent that it can no longer be bared which results in insanity or suicide. The famous philosopher Frederich  Nietzsche described this condition as “the weary Nihilism that no longer attacks..a passive Nihilism, a sign of weakness”.

Active Nihilism on the other hand, is indicative of a relative increase in a sense of personal control. The Active Nihilist sees freedom where the Passive Nihilist sees loss or meaninglessness. He chooses action and creation instead of passivity and withdrawal. For him, the lack of objective standards of moral truth motivates self-created standards and criteria. The Active Nihilist  is not active despite  the unknown but because of it. He possesses a store of creative energy and power which allows him to impose personal meaning on the world while never forgetting that he is the source of it all and progenitor of that meaning. He is heroic in this sense, facing the world with courage and purpose.

This short inquiry is not exhaustive in the least and would be chancy to change any minds but I felt it necessary of my own desire to give my two cents on the matter. Nihilism can be a very confusing thing for some people, especially those who see Nihilists like me who would easily confuse me with come kind of Gandhi character espousing robust Altruism. But so I don’t disappoint their mis-guided view of Nihilism as a meaningless, heartless and void of all things good I’ll close off by saying that I wish all my Nihilist friends well while they go brutally anal rape some crippled people and blow-up a church.

Why Politics is Not the Answer

Posted in Anarchy, Free-thought, LOGIC, Philosophy, Politics on October 23, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Government exists for the purpose of giving the illusion that we are a civilized people. Government does not actually make us civilized–quite the opposite–we have government because we are not civilized. If government were to suddenly collapse we would descend into even more chaos than we are in. The average person is irresponsible and irrational. So politics is really the mechanism of how to control and get around these irrational people. It does not actually solve the problem. If solving the problem is your objective then politics is not what you should be concerned with. Is the solution how to control irrationality or is the solution how to have less rationality?

I am concerned with what people do, not what they are allowed to do.


Give Peace a Chance

Posted in Anarchy, Defiance, Free-speech, Free-thought, Music, Politics, Protesting on October 6, 2010 by FЯEEDO