Archive for the Objectivism 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.

Advertisements

An Examination of Human Nature and the Discontents of Authority

Posted in Anarchy, Atheism, Buddhism, Capitalism, Christianity, Cold-reading, Conversion, Creationism, Defiance, Derren_Brown, Evolution, Experiment, Faith, Free-speech, Free-thought, God, happy, Hindu, Islam, Justice, Leftism, Libertarianism, LOGIC, Magic, Mind-control, Morality, Mormon, Muslim, Objectivism, Philosophy, Politics, Protesting, Psychic, Psychology, Purpose, Religion, Science, Sex, Skepticism, Socialism, strange, Super-natural on March 17, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Let it be known that I do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the videos below. I have provided so many for the purpose of providing different points of view and a broad context on the matter.

Now for the next series:

Now another series:

And to finish it off:

After viewing all these videos I have become very torn.

I think human nature is basically selfish. But also that selfishness is not a bad thing. That, in-fact, the right kind of selfishness is very good and is a healthy construct for morality.

I do not like Socialism because it refutes selfishness and attempts to oppress me with it’s own vision of morality; the same kind boasted by classical religion which is a pollutant of intellectual progress.

But I do not like Capitalism either because it has a foundation upon mind-control. It is merely another version of the state except that the state is authoritative through non-voluntary means whereas Capitalism is authoritative through means of indoctrination and retardation of the masses. Statism and Capitalism have the same ends except the state forces you there while Capitalism tricks you there.

A voice deep within me cries “There must be another alternative!”, but I don’t know what it is.

So for now I will say this:

Direct politics is of trivial importance. No matter what government or lack thereof you have it will still be all for nothing if you have an intellectually bankrupt people. The key to changing society for the better is not through government but through culture; through philosophy and through science.

Your Morality is Blasphemous to Rationality.

Posted in Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Evolution, Faith, Free-thought, God, happy, Hindu, Islam, Justice, Leftism, Libertarianism, LOGIC, Morality, Mormon, Muslim, Objectivism, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Purpose, Religion, Science, Super-natural on March 10, 2010 by FЯEEDO

Through-out mankind’s history you have attempted to oppress us with your vision of morality. Every-time the world fell into chaos you cried “No, my code has been broken, that is what has caused this”. You pleaded that your code is a just one but mankind’s nature is not just enough to follow it. The world has, since the rising of modern society, been in a battle between those who tell us our rights are bestowed of us by God, a matter to be taken on faith, and those who tell us our rights are a gift society, to be changed at their arbitrary whim. Those who told you your right to life, to think and be a moral, rational being, is a matter to be dictated by your master; the all powerful sky-fairy. And those who replace this intellectual slave-holder with another; the collective, who say your purpose of living is to support it. But no one came to defend YOU and your right to YOURSELF, by the means of REASON, to your own ends of the preservation and advancement of your own happiness in a just way that does not conflict with rights of others to what is needed to secure what reason entitles them.

Your morality is the code of non-productivity. If it were not for greed, the very incentive for constructing the systems I am using to communicate with you now, we would still be in the dark-ages, which indeed was a time completely dominated by your so called code of morality. If it were not for lust, the very incentive for the creation of my existence and the capacity to think so to communicate with you now, intelligent life would have never arisen. If it were not for pride, the acknowledgment of ones own self-value and incontrovertible right to happiness, the very incentive that gets you up in the morning, puts nourishment in your belly, has you make plans of the future for your success and progression of your personal well-being, we would be reduced to savagery, unidentifiable from the animals. Only an irrational being would pursue a coarse which is knowingly to them the one of unhappiness. Even those who believe in heaven do what they do on Earth what they think gets them to heaven instead of hell. I do not hear of anyone who thinks doing good will put them in hell and then willingly chooses it. The pursuit of happiness, by the grace of REASON, is THE most basic purpose for a creature capable of feeling it.

You say without God there is no purpose? I say that since we can feel happiness, by REASON, we have a purpose to feel it. Not only will a rational man declare his undeniable right to that pursuit but also the way of which it must be obtained. For the highest quality results, it must work as a social system, one in which the pursuit of this principle is equal for all individuals. One that allows the most possible FREEDOM, the means of obtaining happiness, to each person as long as they aren’t interfering with the freedom of others so far as that person can use it with the same principle. This means no murder, no theft, no slavery, no rape, no fraud concerning the exchange of property, no reckless endangerment, etc. It is only through the critical and objective deduction of reason that any truth can be found, that purpose or justice can exist, not by the act of any god. If it is not to be decided by reason, that would make it unreasonable, which makes it invalid of exercising. You say your God creates reason? Since circular reasoning is impossible that would mean reason could not cause the nature of your God, which would make the nature of that God unreasonable and thus invalid of existing and unworthy of any worship even if it did.

The most selfish thing is the independent mind which recognizes no authority higher than it’s own. Selfishness, being defined as the pursuit of the preservation and advancement of ones own happiness, can have no negative outcome if it is pursued in only ways that do not conflict with the same pursuit of another. The two oppositions of this policy are self-denial, willingly causing ones own unhappiness. And the other, social injustice, the despicable imposing of your will upon the that of another. Each of those having no rationally justifiable consequences.

I think it is wrong to say that humans are humans because we have the ability to choose to end our lives and animals do not. I tell you, animals certainly will choose death, if they think it will bring them happiness, just as humans will. But what makes humans human is the ability to reason whether it truly will or not. Happiness and suffering, the two fundamental emotions, pleasure and pain, the two fundamental sensations, are evolutionary products to increase the outcome of life over death and act as direct sensual extensions of the two…but it is not perfect. For evolution does not make perfection but merely something that is usually just good enough. If you teach an ape that the administration of a certain drug to it’s other ape counter parts will certainly kill them by means of injection and then administer a small amount to the ape, a drug which actually causes extreme satisfaction, then give it a choice to have more, it indeed will choose death, able to reason that the drug will bring happiness but not that once it is dead it will be unable to experience it any further happiness. The human-being CAN, the human has the ability to reason that more happiness can actually be obtained by not taking the drug.

Just like happiness and pleasure are an extension of life, and unhappiness and displeasure an extension of death. So is your morality, being the morality of self-denial and social-injustice, also an extension of death. To every ends driving your actions, presumed preferable by that of your twisted code, your premise and goal is death. And your morality has for ages been highly successful at delivering this goal. My morality is the morality of life. Soon, just like the principles of life have conquered biology so shall it conquer culture. The time of your supposed morality is coming to an end, you know this. No longer will suffering, both for ourselves and others, drive our actions—but happiness!

And what it happiness? It is a state of non-contradictory joy, one that does not clash with negative sensation, emotion, or any of your personal values, having been obtained by reason. Not the joy a drunkard but of a producer, not that of escaping reality, but of using your minds fullest power.

If any of these words reach you and have begged you to finally ask the hard questions than let me leave you with these last words to ponder; Now that you may be realizing  why civilization ever crumbles at it’s own hands, know that to correct it we need NOT to return to morality but to discover it.