6 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/25/13 5:25pm)
I believe that to choose life is a sacred decision, imparting moral, normative force on the entirety of one’s interactions with the world. I believe that once such a choice is made through voluntary or instinctual means, every rational being has absolute and inalienable ownership over their body. I believe that such ownership of one’s body and control of one’s life imparts ownership to that being of the fruits of their labor to the same degree as the ownership of the self. The fruits of that labor are, however, alienable and rational beings may increase the value of their possessions through exchange and gift. As such, every rational being has the right to defend their person and property from invasion by every other being that would aggress against their ownership as expressed by control over such person or property.
This universal ethic applies to all rational beings, even those who would claim a supposed right to govern by divine power, social necessity, or fallacious social contracts. No rational being may steal, murder, injure, defraud, or otherwise misappropriate the property of another according to any design other than that of the owner himself. The only just use of force is in proportional response to force.
As such, no one may use force to “make others moral” or to affect economic interactions except in so far as one is protecting the property rights upon which such a system is based.
These are neither consequentialist premises nor conclusions. They are moral conclusions based on the moral worth inherent in life and the decision to pursue it when combined with objective properties of nature - to borrow a memorable phrase, the furniture of the world.
These are the contours of justice, within which, the best practices for life may be crowd sourced, and experimented, and stumbled upon. These are the metaphorical walls within which peace may be achieved.
This moral prescription may not be consequentialist, but the descriptive observations of value-free Austrian Economics support the prosperous consequences achieved when it is the system to which one adheres in the political realm as well as the business and personal realm.
Because this is what I am convinced of, I am a voluntarist. An anarchist. A sovereign individual.
That does not, however, mean that I can survive on my own, and I have chosen life. Life is better when shared, and we can produce more when working together as a melodic symphony of moving parts.
And so I can say, I am a voluntarist and I’d like to know how you’d like to know what we can do to benefit one another.
Because this life that you continue to choose does not have to be a zero sum game.
(03/27/13 1:56pm)
The word ochlocracy comes from the Greek words okhlos (mob) and kratos (rule).
Ochlocracy is generally defined as “the bad version of democracy.”
Democracy is considered good because its rulers supposedly act wisely on behalf of the long-term interests of the community, whereas ochlocracy is associated with short-term emotional satisfaction.
Historical examples of ochlocracy are found whenever a group of people reach an emotional breaking point regarding a perceived injustice and lash out.
Examples of victims of this anger are witches (burned at the stake), blacks (lynched), and politicians (Arab Spring).
The reality is that there is no difference between democracy and ochlocracy. The government is people who make decisions.
These decisions are necessarily based on emotions, because these people are human. All human actions are based on emotion.
More specifically, all human actions are based on the desire to dispel anxiety by gaining control over the physical world. ‘Logic’ comes afterward, not before.
Reason is a retroactive excuse for what someone wants to do emotionally or biochemically. It is pointless to ask why anyone does anything.
The answer is always emotion. They felt like doing it at the time.
The people who become rulers in democracies are necessarily highly skilled actors. They must obtain votes.
The way to accomplish this task is to make the strongest emotional connection with the public.
There are more poor people than rich people, and so the candidate will make promises to help the poor people.
However, the rich people finance campaigns, so they will be promised benefits as well.
In this fashion, the candidate, while campaigning, must speak innumerable lies in order to satisfy as many people as possible.
Thus, democracy necessarily attracts the worst possible people into positions of power.
They will expand government with other people’s stolen money in order to maintain their popularity with as many people as possible.
The worst thing that these psychopaths do is go to war. Democracy is mob rule in which the leader of the mob has the emotional swings of a two-year-old, unlimited stolen money, and access to advanced military weaponry.
In the market, one thing is always true: the public is always WRONG. As the price of something increases, the public always becomes increasingly bullish.
People see the price rising, and want to get in on it. Eventually, the market reaches the stage of ‘euphoria’ or ‘new paradigm’ in which it is believed that nothing can stop the rise in price.
This point in time, in which the public feels the most optimistic about the future price, is actually the top of the market.
When everyone has already bought, there is nothing left to do but sell. The same is true at the opposite end of emotional cycle.
The public feels fear and despair when the price of a good collapses. But once everyone who wants to sell has sold, there is no one left except buyers. It is therefore the optimal time to buy.
The point is that, in democracy/ochlocracy, the public always takes the wrong action at the emotional extremes.
Euphoria leads to reckless spending. Fear leads to murder.
Democracy/ochlocracy is everyone’s dream and everyone’s nightmare. People get to act on their emotions without the consequences of personal responsibility (the dream).
In the market, acting on emotions leads to financial loss. But in a group, blame is passed to someone else: a scapegoat (the nightmare).
The blame is usually either a foreign race/culture or the wealthy. Sometimes it’s both, for example, Jewish people during WWII.
Humans fail to recognize what they are. They do not embrace the reality.
Humans are just like any other animals in the African savannah.
Humans survive by eating other animals. They instinctively protect themselves and their families from threats via fight-or-flight.
They have ever-changing emotions based on feelings of control. But the high level of human intelligence and ability to use language has been a double-edged sword for humanity.
These things allowed humanity to create the wonder known as the marketplace. The marketplace makes life easier for all humans as technology improves. The marketplace gives additional meaning and motivation to human life.
But the global marketplace has become so corrupted by coercive rulers that humans are still suffering much more than they realize.
They are controlled by the rulers of the mob. They don’t fight to survive and be free, they just obey.
They believe the State is something more than what it really is. The State is reified as an inhuman, logical entity when it is the greatest threat to humanity’s existence.
The State is mob rule on a global scale. Arabs are the new witches. Or the new Commies. Or the new Jews. The lineage of blame goes back to pre-history.
Do I suggest forcing anarcho-capitalism on the world? No, because the world is not ready.
The mob must reach an extreme point of despair and reject government in general, not just a particular government.
(02/06/13 7:27pm)
Have you cheered for your local sports team for all of your life, no matter what?
Well, I hold the undoubtedly controversial and unpopular opinion that blindly supporting your local team is equivalent to being a racist. I am serious.
It is entirely acceptable to support a particular team for the right reasons.
Most likely, these reasons will be that the team has notable players or an interesting style of play.
For example, I became a fan of the Pittsburgh Penguins because of the charismatic and insanely creative Mr. Sidney Crosby.
Indeed, I am partial to most Pittsburgh teams, not because I was born in Pennsylvania, but because I admire their style, coaching, management, etc.
However, I am not a fan of the Pittsburgh Pirates; their management has resisted any amount of risk-taking despite a recent history of poor performance. I am also a consistent fan of the German national soccer team, because I admire their playing style that is based on technical proficiency.
Most fans, however, simply support their local team every single year, no matter what.
The entire roster changes and it has no effect on their support for the team. They are supporting the team for one reason: egomania.
Egomania is a psychologically abnormal condition in which a person is possessed by delusions of personal greatness or driven by grandiose fantasies of boundless success that cannot be fulfilled.
Let us take as an example the Buffalo Bills—a team that no one outside of Western New York could possibly support. This team has won zero of 46 Super Bowls. The egomaniacal sports fan begins with the belief that every characteristic of the self is superior. Reasoning is inverted.
The fan does not live in the city because it is the best; instead the city is the best because the fan lives in it.
The city and the team are seen as an extension of the self. The reason, as noted in the previous paragraph, is that if the team does end up winning the championship, it gives the fan a simulated feeling of immense personal success.
A sane observer would note that the fan did absolutely nothing and has no relationship with the people on the team.
One must be a rather pathetic person with little success in their own life if they must fantasize about being part of a professional sports team that never even wins.
They are simply desperate for the hope of winning, presumably because, in their own life, there is no hope of any sort of meaningful success.
The fan of the local sports team wants to be devoid of any personal responsibility for losing but will share in the joy of winning.
When the team loses, like they do every year, the fan blames the idiot GM or players.
When the team wins... “We did it! We won!” Again, egomania is involved. There is no risk that the fan’s self-image can be damaged, because a loss by the team cannot be the fan’s fault.
The fan never has to experience the reality that other people are smarter or more talented.
How is this delusion similar to racism? It should be rather obvious. Just think of different ‘races’ as teams. People support their local team, by which I mean their own race, out of egomania.
White people automatically support other whites. Black people automatically support other blacks. They do so because they see their own skin color as superior. Thus, they hate others for being different in some insignificant way.
There will always be supposed rational justifications for what they already inherently want to do emotionally. And then, once again, look at how they react to any ‘success’ or ‘failure.’
They take no personal responsibility for any failures, but any individual success stories are a victory for the entire race.
These people seem unwilling to pursue individual success.
They accept whatever scraps come their way. They’re scavengers, or maybe serfs.
Successful people do not view the world this way. A successful person correctly interprets all available information and then actively acts upon that information.
A successful person does not get caught up in the non-real collectivist ‘us v. them’ thinking that politicians love.
A successful person generates their own ideas rather than following others’. Perhaps most importantly, a successful person is self-motivated.
This concept is where people get confused. They believe that being self-motivated or attempting to self-actualize is the egomania that I discussed above.
They think it’s wrong. Or they can’t even comprehend how to better themselves.
They think that they’re supposed to act on behalf of others.
Christians call it charity. But in real life, we see that it is merely submission in order to absolve oneself of responsibility for one’s actions.
Being self-motivated is not egomania. It is the desire to personally become the best (perfectly normal) as opposed to the abnormal delusional belief that the self is superior.
Personal failures are accepted as learning experiences and identify weaknesses.
Genuine personal successes are infinitely more satisfying than ‘collective’ victories by one’s team or race.
I will reiterate for those who do not read well: it is stupid to blindly support your local team no matter what they do, just as it is stupid to blindly support all people who happen to have the same amount of melanin as you.
You are an egomaniac. You hate other people because they are dissimilar to you in some meaningless way.
It is ok to support a particular team for a genuine reason, such as that the players are entertaining and skilled.
It is also ok to like another individual if your analysis of that particular individual is favorable.
(11/28/12 11:00pm)
Whenever I come across the issue of abortion, I feel ambivalence.
I feel that both sides are, somehow, correct. I need to figure out why I feel this way, and whether I should feel this way.
I believe that there are four levels of abortion worth individual consideration:
1. cases of dangerous pregnancy (life-threatening),
2. cases of forced pregnancy (rape),
3. cases of undesired pregnancy, and
4. cases of desired pregnancy.
The first and the fourth levels are the easiest to deal with morally, whereas the second and third levels are more difficult.
A few weeks ago, I examined a college ethics textbook (Analyzing Moral Issues by Judith Boss) and read Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion.”
Thomson took the unique approach of accepting that a fetus is a person but still allowing that abortion is permissible in certain cases.
Thomson argues that in the first three cases, abortion is morally justified. Thomson defends her view by using the analogy of a house that belongs to a woman.
Although I agree with the idea of the analogy, I disagree with her execution of the analogy.
Thomson’s analogy for level one (self-defense) is that there is a child who grows in the house and crushes the woman to death.
The woman, as the owner, has the right to defend herself in her own home, even though the child was invited in and is not intentionally harming her.
I wish to present my own analogy for the four levels.
First, imagine that the woman invites an injured Tim Tebow into her home for nine months of healing.
After three months, the woman discovers that Tom Brady strapped a bomb into Tebow’s shoes.
Although it is unintentional, Tebow’s presence threatens the woman in her own home.
Even though the only way to save the woman is to force Tebow to take his shoes outside and detonate himself with them, the woman is justified in defending herself.
Thus, abortion in the case of danger to the mother’s life is justified. (But, if Tebow somehow survives the blast, she can’t go outside and shoot him.)
Thomson does not believe that abortion for level four (initially desired pregnancy) is acceptable, and neither do I.
Thomson’s brief argument is that “we must not fall below” the standard of “Minimally Decent Samaritanism.”
I will continue my house analogy for level four.
If the woman invites an injured Tebow into her home for nine months of healing, she cannot shoot Tebow in the head after seven months simply because she grows tired of having him in her home and that he refuses to leave.
This case is murder because the woman had previously offered to rent her property to Tebow for nine months, and he did nothing to invalidate the contract (whereas he did invalidate it in the level-one case by threatening her).
Levels two (rape) and three (undesired pregnancy) are where things become more difficult.
Thomson’s analogy for level two (rape) is that there is a famous violinist who is forcibly attached to the woman’s kidneys in order to save the violinist’s life.
Is the woman morally required to allow the violinist to remain attached to her kidneys until he recovers in nine months?
Thomson argues that the woman never offered the violinist the right to use her kidneys, and so she is justified in detaching the violinist and allowing him to die.
But it sounds rather unpleasant to send the dependent violinist to certain death, because it was not the violinist who chose to attach himself to the woman.
Let’s clarify the case. Imagine that the injured Tebow is forcibly thrown through the window of the woman’s house and will not be able to leave for nine months.
The woman does not want Tebow to be there, but Tebow did not choose to be there, nor is he threatening her life.
Still, Tebow is on her property against her will. Being thrown through the window did not give Tebow a nine-month lease to her property.
It is unfortunate, but, since Tebow cannot leave when the woman wants him to, the woman appears to be entitled to remove Tebow from her property by whatever means necessary.
Thomson’s analogy for level three (unwanted pregnancy) is that opening a window does not entitle a burglar to enter the woman’s home, even though she knows that burglars are out there.
Going further, what if she puts up bars and screens, but a burglar still manages to get in? The woman is justified in removing the burglar by whatever means necessary, right?
I find this analogy to be the most problematic and inaccurate.
I believe that a more accurate analogy is that the woman puts up a ‘for rent’ sign one night and allows millions of men to tour the property.
The next morning, she takes down the ‘for rent’ sign and demands that all of the men leave her property immediately, claiming that it isn’t really for rent.
She wanted the men to tour the property solely for her own pleasure.
Imagine, though, that one of the men—the injured Tebow—decided to accept the rent deal last night.
Maybe it was a really horrible deal for Tebow and she did everything she could to discourage him, but Tebow signed the lease while it was offered anyway.
She never intended for the offer to be accepted. Nonetheless, it was.
Thus, Tebow is entitled to rent her property for the next nine months.
And so, whereas Thomson believes that abortion is morally justifiable at levels one (self-defense), two (rape), and three (undesired pregnancy), I believe that abortion is morally justifiable only at levels one and two.
(11/07/12 11:00pm)
I want to discuss what a crime is because non-libertarians do not seem to understand what constitutes as a crime. The definition of crime according to Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia is, essentially, “an act that violates the law.”
I believe that accepting such a definition entails surrendering oneself to all governmental authorities.
A legislator can declare anything a crime; it can take any freedom that it wishes to. Legislators abuse this power in order to label people that they don’t like as criminals.
For example, if you do not fill out a 2010 U.S. Census form, then the U.S. government considers you a criminal. (Yet, no one considers the U.S. government to be a criminal for robbing people for the money to fund the Census.)
I believe that the true definition of crime is “an act that violates another person’s freedom.” Victimless crimes do not exist.
Of course, some violations are more egregious than others. Ranking how valuable the individual freedoms are from greatest to least is a difficult task. But, here is the list that I have created:
1. Life. Murder is the most h einous and outrageous crime there is. It is the permanent, irreversible cessation of a human’s existence. All of that person’s freedoms disappear forever. It is infinitely worse than any other crime.
2. Psychological health. The mind is more important than the body. Intentionally inflicting psychological damage on another person by means such as abuse, threats, coercion, and all fear-mongering in general can ruin another person’s entire life. It may be irreversible, especially if it occurs at a young age.
3. Physical health. This one is very similar to psychological health, and the two may often be interwoven. Physical abuse can cause psychological issues. The question is which freedom is more valuable. The body can heal; a violation of physical health is more likely to be temporary. Of course, it may be permanent as well. But when one considers individuals like Jean-Dominique Bauby or Stephen Hawking, one sees the value of a fully functioning mind.
4. “The pursuit of happiness.” Thomas Jefferson considered this right more important than property, and so do I. Without the right to the pursuit of happiness, property would be meaningless. The meaning of this phrase is vague, though. To me, this category covers movement, choice, opinion, and reputation. Imprisonment is a horrible crime. The prisoner is completely subject to the whims of the captor. The prisoner has no freedom regarding entertainment, sunlight, income, food, and so forth. But, freedom of movement does not entail communal ownership of land. A private property owner may invite whomever s/he wishes onto the land that s/he owns.
5. Property. This category encompasses all rightful ownership. Theft and fraud are crimes. No one should be subjected to unwilling loss of their land, money, valuables, or body. The nature of economics is the voluntary exchange of these items.
If an action does not fit into one of these five categories, then it is not a crime; it is merely unlawful. Is it a crime to text while driving? No. Is it a crime to own a firearm without a license? No. We must not allow the legislators to judge us as criminals when we are not.
Comments on this opinion can be sent to christopher.m.shatto@live.mercer.edu
(10/24/12 8:51pm)
Every day, the idea that there is a universally recognized concept of ‘justice’ (like a Platonic form) becomes more and more laughable. My theory that ‘justice’ is no more than the feeling of defeating a hated person/group looks to be correct; it is a democratic term used by the majority to feel morally superior.
‘Justice’ and ‘injustice’ are subjective emotional feelings. The idea that they are rational is not in line with reality. But the thing that is really disappointing about the truth is that people are so irrational that they don’t even know at whom to direct these emotions.
Look at the NCAA’s recent punishment of Penn State, for example. Most people want to see Penn State punished because they are appalled by the crimes of Jerry Sandusky, etc. But Penn State is an abstraction. Are you angry at the Nittany Lion logo? Or maybe the geographical location? A logo cannot commit a crime.
Personally, I believe in punishing individuals rather than an abstraction.
Basically, Sandusky, Paterno and anyone else involved in the conspiracy should be removed from Penn State (either by the university or NCAA) or otherwise punished via legal arbitration.
What sense does it make to disqualify Penn State from football games that they won? Why punish football players and students? Why fine the university an insane amount of cash? “The area needs a culture change.”
What kind of reasoning is that? Penn State football has no hope of competing for a long time. The punishment is a nonsensical emotional reaction to ‘win’ against the hated ‘Penn State.’
Imagine that you are a resident of Denver, Colorado. Two incidents of mass murder (Columbine and The Joker) have occurred in the area and received national attention. And so imagine if the President of the United States decided that Denver ‘needs a culture change.’
The Denver area taxpayers must pay the U.S. a $1 billion fine. The Feds will provide ‘special monitoring’ to the area (with curfews, etc) and so on with other craziness. Collectivist thinking is dangerous. We are not one big society. We are distinct individuals. And the individual criminals should be punished. In this insane scenario, which sounds like something out of Atlas Shrugged, the economy of Denver is destroyed and the innocent citizens have miserable lives. That is exactly what is happening to the people at Penn State.
Some people are so dense that they go beyond blaming an institution that they substitute for actual people. Instead, they literally place the blame on inanimate objects. Liberals, especially, always blame guns. They say things like “we can have sensible gun-control laws without taking away anyone’s rights.” Except, you know, the right to own the gun. The gun is the greatest invention in the history of liberty. It allows anyone to defend their person/property from a physically superior criminal (which could easily be the State itself).
I’ve become more existentialist over the last few months. When I wrote a purpose of life essay, I had three theories as possibilities: hedonism, liberty, and existentialism. I ignored existentialism then, but it’s a key part. All three theories go together. There is no point to life other than what you decide it to be. Most people find meaning in relationships (romantic/family) and their passions (like sports or a good career). Existentialism adds the necessary individuality and subjectivity to hedonism.
I think that people admire the ‘physicality’ of other people. We admire their fit bodies and what they can do with them. We watch sports to see the theoretical capabilities of humanity. We can also extend this ‘physicality’ to speech. We admire confidence, quick wit, and smooth talking. I think we can even extend this physicality to certain tools/items that become an extension of the body. Most obvious is clothing, as fashion. But we admire skill with tools like guns as well.
But when we shift into the issue of private property, I believe that the admiration turns into jealousy. I believe it is a social phenomenon rather than human nature. It is our emotion that wants it, but our logic makes us aware of the market. We trade rather than steal and both parties are satisfied. That is, until it becomes more and more socially acceptable to steal. Most people today seem to think that it’s ‘just’ to steal from corporations because they ‘screw us over.’ Note that corporations are (1) abstractions and (2) not coercive. And these same people adamantly defend the State.