Forum Post: Starting with a first principle instead of the end conclusion
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 10:45 p.m. EST by voluntaryist
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why focus on the end goal, when not one of us knows what the future will be? The future is beyond knowing.
Focus on the process and the first principles as a philosopher would.
Here is my most fundamental principle: initiating aggression against an individual is wrong.
Now, I don't have an end goal in mind with this principle. When I apply the principle consistently, whether I like it or not, I arrive at conclusions that free market anarchy is the best to support the non-aggression principle. I don't know what a free market anarchist society looks like. No one does because it has never existed. I think we are headed that way, because each person wants as much freedom as possible, and the only way to have as much freedom as possible is to not initiate aggression against another individual. Freedom of thought works that way. In order to have freedom of thought, one has to tolerate freedom of others. Notice I did not say freedom of speech, because there are times that freedom of speech can interfere with another person's freedom, such as in the case of shouting "Fire!" in a theater where one individual's freedom of speech comes up against another individual's freedom of safety. Freedom of physical safety trumps freedom of speech, because there is no freedom of speech without freedom of safety. Notice that this is an example of the non-aggression principle.
Now I know I am going to get responses about the idea of free market anarchy. You won't be engaging me where I am at. I want to know about the non-aggression principle, if there is something flawed about this first principle. I have for months looked for a flaw, and I can't find one. Initiating aggression is wrong.
Without a true first premise, how can one determine useful conclusions?
I want to know what your very first principle or premise is.
lol.....so your clearly getting inspiration from our conversation at least....
I dare you to read that book...
True :). I might take a look at your book. Thanks for sharing your links, and even more your conversation.
Unity. Solidarity. We ARE the 99%.
Omnia vincit amor.
you are a dangerous subversive - intent on undermining the Constitution.
How have you done that? With passive aggressive language. Very clever. You have suggested that there is no free speech.
Of course we are not going into a theater to shout fire - unless there is one. Why? Because, our own names and reputations are on the line - such an act would almost certainly cause a stampede, people would get hurt, possibly killed, and for what? Entertainment?
free market anarchy - isn't that where the deregulatory process has already taken us? Have we not gone far enough in this direction? You are clever. Using terms to hook the base of the Occupy Movement - but already the movement has grown beyond this base, and it will not sell far and wide.
Non-aggression principle - what is that? Should we lay down before all of the PG&Es of the world? [of Erin Brockovich fame?]
I say no. We must confront them. To engage the system with peaceful protest - this is aggressive. this is confrontational. This is American.
Go back to your right wing think tank.
The Constitution is not perfect. There was room for improvement. The Constitution instituted a monopoly on legal tender. Imagine if an individual could freely make a new currency to complete in the open market. The Federal Reserve and US Treasury's stranglehold on currency is unchallengeable.
As for your points about free speech, you misread me. The non-aggression principle is not INITIATING violence or coercion. Where did I say one has to suffer aggression? You misread me there too.
Where's your philosophy starting with your first premise? You give the impression of having a consistent philosophy. So write it out for all to look at.
In the 1780s individuals and or individual states did coin their own currency, and during the gold rush there was coinage produced as well. As far as a monopoly on currency goes - that belongs to the FED? a Private institution? is that correct?
My philosophy -
My philosophy is that philosophy itself is over rated, prone to twisted logic and fallacy borne of wonder, awe, and utter stupifaction before the linguistic gymnastics of those with the skills to justify anything to anyone and yet believe nothing is true, nothing is sacred, and nothing has value beyond their own capacity to mesmerize.
But that's me, you know, and I've been beaten, linguistically speaking, so I'm a bit biased on the matter.
Have you ever been beaten? Linguistically speaking? It isn't pleasant. Resistance results in prostration before the DSM IV - where, if one is not careful, one may be chemically restrained, indefinitely.
I've been fortunate in that regard. No chemicals for me. No straight jackets.
oo but I have died so many times . . .
I am sorry to hear about your experiences of abuse. Abuse, whether physical, verbal, or otherwise is wrong. I am curious what you went through, and how it is affecting you still. I am amazed that you are putting yourself out here in these forums which I have found abusive at times. Actually, I found your first response to me rough. I felt sad to feel misread, and dismissed.
I don't know everything about the history of money in the US. What is the history of coinage in the 1780's? You do know that the Constitution was not ratified until 1789? I just looked that up. What is the history of the Gold rush coinage?
This what the Constitution says:
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 5: The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt."
The federal government can coin money.
States cannot coin money.
States have the authority of determining what can be used as a tender in payment of debts by default, because the federal government does not have that specific constitutional authorization.
States are then prohibited by the Constitution from making any Thing but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts. (Which also additionally proves that #3 is correct.)
This is what the US Code says:
"TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 5103
"§ 5103. LEGAL TENDER United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts."
The Federal Reserve is not private. Straight from the Federal Reserve's website:
"The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.
"As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
"However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."
"The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."
Just because the Federal Reserve is part of government, does not mean that government, including the Federal Reserve, are not privileging individuals with political power.
Lastly, I am sorry that you find philosophy unhelpful. At the heart of philosophy for me are logic and evidence (ie empiricism). Since you find language useful by using it as a means to express yourself in a way that can be understood, I find your expression in agreement with philosophy.
I was being a smart ass. No question about it. Toughen up big guy.
There is a lot of disinformation around these days, I get reactionary when I think I hear someone undermining the Constitution. Is it perfect? Probably not. Are there those attempting to finnagle their way around the Bill of Rights? Absolutely.
Private industry and the harvesting of your buying and spending habits, in my book, is a seizure that the government is not permitted, yet in the private sector we are bribed to give away daily.
then there is the NSA, harvesting telecommunications, practically for my entire life I guess. Is this an illegal seizure? I think so, according to the Bill of Rights.
Indefinite detention? Ditto.
I've never been formally trained in philosophy, I've attempted Plato on my own, and gotten a bit lost. I was always good in math though. Similar disciplines, just different languages, and math itself tends to be a bit more concrete, less prone to interpretation.
As for what I went through, you can find many descriptions on my website,
I stuttered for about five years, but only when I laughed. The stutter is gone now, has been for five or six years, and the nightmares are infrequent now.
I pay about $150 every year to keep the website up, just so that others will at least have an opportunity to know, should they find the information useful, they are not alone.
-
Jules
.
She was kinda cute, and kinda young,
and no one knew she kept a pistol
in her purse. She only used it once.
.
So I wonder: Was she the Master
of her own Domain?
Upon this point we could now dispute . . .
.
I would see her often at the slams
come Friday nite, and often she would win,
way back in nineteen ninety-nine.
.
She would feign with innocence,
thinly veil a smile and flirt
with mystery . . .
.
When she got the news, she did not fight,
she simply took control. "Cancer" she was told,
was why she could not eat.
.
So I wonder: Was she the Master
of her own Domain?
Upon this point we could now dispute . . .
.
Would she have sought to overcome
had she not learned the Great Distrust
within Domain?
.
No one knew she kept a pistol
in her purse. Yet they said so
passing by.
.
She only used it once.
-
© D. Winter
June 19, 2008
Win/win interactions > win/lose interactions > lose/win interactions > lose/lose interactions.
But the alternative most people miss. No interaction or No deal. Refuse to play the game if there is no win/win interaction.