Saturday, May 24, 2014

My response to Mark Passio on the zeitgeist podcast

I mostly agree with Mark, I agree with about 90% of what he said. 

A few disagreements:

1. A single person can not have all of a resource, or all of the resources on the planet as property.

Hair splitting distinction

If a person actually was able to peacefully COLLECT, or homestead/enclose all resources without attacking (violence) others, paying people to attack (violence) others, threatening to attack others to collect tax and pay for that project (violence), then that person owns those resources as rightful property. Without violence and without the state, it's logistically and effectively impossible to collect all of a certain resource, or all the worlds resources, because there will be so much competition already who will take what they collect.

2. If you cultivate too many heads of lettuce and can not eat it all before it goes bad, then the lettuce that you can not use/eat is not your property.

Hair splitting distinction

Anything that you yourself/your employees peacefully build, harvest, collect, cultivate, etc is your property. You do not need to give your excess to disadvantaged people, the poor, or the starving, because you have no obligation. You choose what to do with YOUR property. If your excess is going to go to waste, then it is spiritually more prudent and of higher consciousness to give it away and to help out those in need. However, it is not a wrong not to do so, because inaction is not an attack on others (violence).

3. I somewhat disagree with mark about money

Money is a religion when you value it over morality. Money doesn't exist in nature, but there's nothing wrong with possessing money/currency as property, or trading/investing with it, because those actions are not physical attacks (violence). Money itself is not what maintains power advantage and power differential. It is violence and physical attack which does that. Our monopolized modern money system is controlled and controls others by use of the violence of the state, which is what causes all the problems. It would also be physical attack and violence if force is used to prevent people from using money, or to take it away from them, just like taxation.

Money is a religion for most people because they value it over life, freedom, truth, natural law, morals etc. But that religion is also propped up by the physical attacks/violence of the state. Corporations are not great, because they are government creations, and could not exist without the state. They would instead be moral and voluntary businesses that serve the people to get customers. These businesses could not get so big and evil if they were not corporations/if they couldn't take advantage of the violence of the state.


If we are not very clear about how natural law works, and where EXACTLY the line between rights actions are wrong actions are, then things will get convoluted. If the bar is too low, we will allow wrongs to happen and ruin the society of humanity and stunt our evolution, like allowing taxation to occur. If the bar is too high, we'll think that some rights are wrongs, which eliminates choice, freedom, and our self education of natural law. 

I believe the bar is at physical attack, which is also physical theft of legitimate property. We have to be vigilant about our understanding of where the line is, and we must defend ourselves and others from anyone who crosses that line, because they do not have the right to physically attack others or physically steal from them. 

 to specify again, physical attack does not include physical defense. Physical attack is the initiation of the use of physical force again another, with the intention of harming them or stealing from them.

Some debate

Lifeboat scenario

I wanted to clarify about my post about the zeitgeist podcast. I said that not giving away excess food that you cultivated is a right, meaning that it would be wrong for, say, a starving person to take it without your permission, because it is YOUR food which YOU produced, and so it is your property. If the food you own and grow for yourself is actually your property, then you can choose to do whatever you want with it. You can eat it, store/freeze it/can it, give it away, sell it, let it go to waste, use it as mulch, anything. Anything that is not a physical attack against someone else. Only physical attacks/theft are actual wrongs, because it is intentionally causing physical harm to another person. Everything else are your rights, because you are not physically attacking someone. We figure out right with the apophatic method, what are not rights, what are actually wrongs, because rights are unlimited, infinite, and innumerable. Not feeding the poor and starving is a right, because not feeding the poor and starving is not an attack on others. You are not the one causing harm to them by not feeding them. But you can feed them if you wish, because by definition, rights must be optional, and can not be an obligation. You are only obligated NOT to do wrongs, because the nature of actual obligations is that it is possible to always fulfill them every waking (and sleeping) moment of your life. You are obligated to NOT murder. That obligation is achievable, to not murder every moment you are alive. Most people go a lifetime without murdering, and thus fulfill that obligation every day, until they are dead. You can only be obligated to not do something, and can never be obligated to do something. If you were obligated to feed the poor, you would have to be actively doing that every moment that you are alive, which is impossible. You can not be feeding the poor while you are simultaneously feeding yourself. You can't be feeding the poor while you're sleeping, watching tv, going to work, going to church, helping your neighbor with her groceries, etc. Thus, since that obligation is not achievable in perpetuity, then it can not be an obligation in nature. Also, if certain rights were an obligation, that would take away our choice or preference of rights to enact, which would take away our freedom and free will.

Rights can not be obligations, but rights are shoulds. Rights are hierarchical in nature, but they are our freedoms, and we should not be physically attacked for any of them. Nature responds to them, in direct proportion with how right and good the action is. They are freedoms because we are supposed to learn their lessons from nature and from experimentation, trial and error, as opposed to wrongs. When a wrong is committed, physical defense may be used against that person, because you are not supposed to experiment with wrongs, physically attacking others. Natural repercussions and consequences of the psyche and conscious will be most severe against those who enact wrongs, and those who have enacted wrongs. The consequences will be proportional the the amount of wrongs you have done or continue to do. Most people don't do wrongs, at least most of the time, and don't have much to be concerned about. But there is no salvation or exemption from the consequences, whatever they might be, for those who continually commit wrongs, without learning from their consequences, and without ceasing.

The purpose of the hierarchy of rights is to learn to do good, to do better, and to improve and become enlightened. But again, there is no obligation to do any of those things, because all rights are optional and actionable. If you were obligated to improve from one level of rights to another, then there would be no freedom.

Christianity finds freedom in salvation, grace, and forgiveness, because to them, ever other action, thought, or word is a sin. Where in reality, freedom is found in all your rights, and slavery is found only in physical attack, and where physical attack is allowed and rampant.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Christians, Should I Be Punished For My Opinion?

What, justifiably, should be punished? Punishment can be ostracism or something else that is mild, if it is just, so let me be more specific & let's go all the way down, to the worst of the worst actions & their just punishments. Because I categorize all physical violence as the bottom rung, beast consciousness. Wherein physical violence would be the initiation of force against another person. Physical violence would not be the victims response to his attacker, that would only be categorized as self defense, or force. Because, if we are allowed to - & have the right to - protect ourselves & deal out a just & equal punishment, then we have the right to deal out as much physical force as we need to, or even as much as we want to, in self defense, because we are already in that category. All physical attacks are in the bottom, black category of actions, making them wrongs. It isn't even on the first step of Jacobs ladder, it isn't even on the ladder. Black is where no light is. It is where no prudence is. Theft is the physical domain, rape is physical, confining someone to an area/restricting their rights is the physical domain. Attacks other than physical attacks have to do with the verbal & communication domain, so we could only defend ourselves against those types of debates or attacks with counter arguments, or we can just leave the situation.

Once we are physically attacked in any way, we have the right to physically defend ourself in any way. Why? Because a physical attacker is prone to do it again. They are prone to become addicted to it. The best way to prevent physical force of any kind is to physically act against an initiator, before that person does it again.

In this model, it is not acceptable to use force to defend yourself against another persons verbal attack, attack of language, or opinion. If somebody does that, it is actually the person who used force who acted wrongly, because they initiated the use of force, making it a physical attack. 

So. No, I should not be punished for my opinion. Here, I'm equating punishment to physical force, which would include my murder, physical harm, rape, theft, or confinement. And hell is a theory of confinement & torture in a specific place. Why would someone go to hell? For their sins. What is sin in the Christian tradition? Arbitrary dictates of the bible. What is sin in actuality? Physical attack, which is violence. And what is hell in actuality? I would submit that heaven & hell is a continuum of the same thing. What is the point of eternity unless it is the chance & opportunity to continue to improve ourselves. I think the degree that you are in hell is the degree that you committed wrongs. If you are Hitler, committed & authorized countless actions of murder & wrongs, destroying your soul & your understanding, then eternity will probably not be enough time for you to change your mind, face yourself and the ethics of your actions, & improve yourself to be able to climb out of that side of the spectrum. The nearer you are to a black whole, the harder it is to get away & to not get sucked into it. Same with hell. The further in you are, the harder it is to get out, let alone reverse your course.

But let's get back to the Christian theory of heaven & hell. If actual sin is only the initiation of physical attack, then I'm not going to hell. Except there are countless other actions that Christians classify as sins, automatically labeling every person, every newborn baby, as innately & inevitably sinful, & deserving of death. What is their magical concoction to give them hope of escaping hell? Jesus. Jesus, the perfect person, the son of God, died for our sins in our place, went to hell, came back to life, then went to heaven! All so that we don't have to go to hell if we believe in him, & if we believe in that story. 

I don't believe in that story, so according to Christians, my punishment is hell & torture for all of eternity. In this version, hell is physical confinement (don't bother trying to change the situation by calling it a spiritual situation, it's the same concept as physical confinement) which is physical attack, & the initiation of force. It is wrong to use physical force to punish me for my opinion, my opinion of Jesus, because it is not a just & equal punishment. Therefore, God commits a wrong for sending me to hell for this opinion. But in the Christian tradition, God can only be good, & can only do good, meaning that he can only do what is right. So sending me to hell for my opinion, a wrong, is a contradiction of God, the right. So is that really what happens?

Here's the more important question. If you are a Christian, & you believe that God sends me to hell for my opinion of Jesus, do you support God in his decision to do evil? Are you happy that I am put in spiritual prison for my opinion. If I cared about politics at all, that would be the same as the government putting me in prison for my vocal support & opinion of the republicans, & denouncement of the democrats. Would that be right, or would that be evil? It would be an evil, obviously. More importantly, do you give your support to the evil actions that the government took? In the same way, do you give your support to the evil action you believe that God will take, locking me into hell, based on my opinion, my faith or lack there of, about Jesus? If you say that it is ok for God to do such a thing, then you are as ideologically bankrupt as your theory of God is. This is the same as saying that it is ok, & right, for God to flood the earth, killing innocent infants, just because he is God. Rights & wrongs, good & evil, does not change depending on weather you are God, not God, a citizen, a government official, or any other difference there might be.

Another cop out is that it is a matter between me & God, but it's not. This is the Christian theory. This is the church's judgment. And this is the cultures manipulation & guilt trip. This started between me & other people, so don't try to move the conversation over to an invisible being, just because I'm getting good at pointing out contradictions. If God judges me in the end, then I will deal with that then, all while abstaining from & eradicating physical violence to the best of my ability. But while we are alive, this is a human to human conversation, that must be had if we are to align our knowledge & perspective up with reality, with Truth, with what actually is. 

Another way to put this: If Hitler confessed his sins to Jesus, & "accepted him as the son of God, & his Lord & savior," then did Hitler go to heaven? The Christian doctrine would claim that he was not saved, because he committed suicide, and would not have had a chance to confess his sins after that, since his last action was a sin. Ok, thought experiment. Say that he didn't commit suicide, but during his life he authorized the murder of MILLIONS of INNOCENT people, & probably killed some himself. If he confessed his sins & did all the hat tricks that Christians tell you to do to be saved, was he saved? Should he be saved? Would that be justice? Would he have really learned from the consequences of his actions? It seems like a cheat to me, it seems contradictory, & as such, it seems that it would not be the case.

I was told that all I have to do is have faith that what the bible says is true, what the Christian doctrine says is true, & that Jesus is Lord & savior.

If I don't hold those opinions, then I will go to hell based on those opinions, which is a wrong. An act of evil. I will not have faith that an evil act is good, necessary, or acceptable. I will not have faith in a theory of God that contradicts my moral principles, that commits acts of violence against the innocent, & acts of grace & love to those who are guilty. And I can not have fellowship with a group of people that are so morally bankrupt & backwards. To those that are my friends & family, I have to make this point clear, & they must grapple with the ramifications. Hopefully they can align their beliefs with principles, and with truth. Hopefully they can actually work out & eliminate contradictions, instead of ignoring or forgiving them. And hopefully they can see the doctrine & institution of Christianity for what it really is; a control illusion, the matrix, an incorrect path, & a sham.

(Update) Image to sum this up. Don't support these:

Monday, January 6, 2014

"Against the Gods?" rebuttal

 I really do appreciate Stefan Molyneux's work & why he is trying to tackle the questions of freedom & morality the way he is, scientifically. So I'm linking his audiobooks up in my blog/podcast feed so I can listen to them in the podcasting app I use. However, I might have started out with his most controversial & contentious book ("Against the Gods?") which is primarily on his views on atheism & why it trumps agnosticism. I had a few qualms & bones to pick that kept cropping up in this book, but I don't think my counter arguments have been thought of too often by either religious theists or agnostics, so I hope to provide a perspective that is more fresh & more advanced. My arguments will be mostly speculation & will lack evidence & may appear illogical, but I just want to get the entire debate to move forward, which requires checking our premises.

Molyneux insists on keeping all actions & attributes that have historically been associated with gods still intact & part of the argument, & will show how the concepts of gods contradict themselves using only those actions & attributes. I think if we can agree to dismiss all of them altogether we can move past the argument from religion. Doing this takes us back to the question that is more primary & why the actions & attributes of God was invented in the first place. The primary question is, "where does everything come from," or "where did the universe come from?" The concept of God was invented because of the fact that everything has to come from something, which is a constant & perpetual cycle backwards in time. Something has to have existed forever backwards for that cycle to exist in, which human thought has narrowed down to be either a creator (God) or time. If we go with the creator but limit the being to a computer programmer just as human as we are (the universe being his program), then he or she would also be living in a universe created by a programmer in a universe created by a programmer, to infinity. And if the universe was created by two particles colliding together, then those particles would have had to come from another set of particles that came from another set of particles, or else they would have just existed forever in time backwards. In any case, Molyneux didn't address the question of "where did everything come from" to my satisfaction. He might not have actually addressed it at all. 

Molyneux maintains that all claims or possibilities of a creator have to only exist in a separate universe with totally opposite & random rules from our own to be able to create our universe, but this would still beg the question of another creator for that universe & another creator for that one to infinity, just like the programmer scenario. I agree that a creator would have to be part of this universe that we can see & measure to have had any influence on it what so ever, & that there is no evidence for alternate universes with their own histories & trajectories existing at all. I propose the thought experiment that the answer is in dimensions of this existing universe, all stacked up on each other, where lower dimensions are not directly aware of higher dimensions. We are currently at the level of & aware of three dimensions in this universe, x, y and z, that's why we experience everything in 3D. As with Carl Sagan's example of dimensions of the same universe, If there could be conscious beings in 2D land, they would only be aware of their 2D land & not know how to perceive the third dimension & what is happening in it. It would all be part of the same universe, but in the same way, we would not know how to perceive & recognize the fourth dimension & ones greater than that. What if the creator is in one of those higher dimensions that we can't perceive?

In dismissing past attribution associated with "God" as actual abilities of a creator or generative principle, (and to make myself sound totally heretical) we can say that the creator is not omniscient, omnipresent, all knowing or all powerful. We can dismiss all biblical miracles as made up stories, chance, nature, or Ancient Aliens with advanced technology. If there is a universal creator, we can only say that it had the power to create that universe.

Molyneux also maintains that consciousness can only be a property of matter, & an effect of the cause which would be the brain. In most cases I agree with him that the popular consensus has cause & effect mixed up & often times backwards. But if either consciousness or matter has to have been in existence forever backwards in time, which is it more likely to be? Which is actually more complex? In evolution, we know that less complex things precede more complex things, & I would counterintuitively argue that the universe & everything in it is more complex than consciousness. There are an innumerable number of objects, creatures, & things in the physical 3D world for me to learn about, but consciousness might be more simple than we think. The physical could be the domain of the third dimension while consciousness is the domain of the fourth dimension. This goes to the argument that the brain is actually an antenna that connects to consciousness & relays its signal into the physical world. Does a more developed brain create better intelligence & a better consciousness, or is it merely better equipment to put more of the signal of consciousness through into this dimension. 

I know I'm speaking as if consciousness is all one thing, and what if it is? What if all our consciousness is actually combined in the fourth dimension, & is actually the creator of the third dimension, which is to say that all of our consciousness is actually God. Our brains & our bodies are antennas channeling one consciousness, diversifying & complexing its own experience in physical form. If consciousness is all one thing, & if the evolution of novelty & diversification is progress & the creation of beauty, then that would be the purpose of the creation of the third dimension, & of biology. Even if it were just to spark a Big Bang from a tiny beginning, with all the resources & physical laws inside, packed & able to spin out of control, to make a physical system that ever creates more complexity. 

In this theory, being that consciousness all comes from the same source and is all the same thing, what if the creator didn't actually decide upon moral dictates. What if it was man. What if the invention & development of morals is actually humanity recognizing that all of our consciousness is one in the same & one big mass, & to aggress against each other is actually to aggress against ourselves. To develop our moral technology is to recognize what is and is not actually harmful to each other, & then to have the freedom to learn how to treat each other better than that. As we universalized our morals & our respect for humanity, we universalize the non aggression principles because it is imprudent for us not to, both for ourselves & for humanity. Even for conscious beings as a whole. To become more moral is merely to prevent self attack & self aggression on our collective consciousness.