Moral and Ethical Consideration (3)

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Cynicism, Philosophy, Uncategorized | Posted on 06-08-2018

Moral and ethical consideration can only be given in degrees of reciprocity.

That is, a rock cannot give any moral consideration to you when it falls on your head, and you cannot give any real moral consideration to that rock.

Similarly, mosquitoes do what mosquitoes do, and if a mosquitoes bites you, it’s only being a mosquito. There is no moral judgement here. It bites you. You swat it and kill it. The mosquito chose a bad target.

The mosquito has no moral consideration for biting you, and your swatting of the mosquito isn’t a moral consideration.

The same applies to hungry animals. We don’t blame a wolf for being a wolf. Neither do we blame anyone for killing a wolf to defend themselves.

These are not moral or ethical considerations except for some very silly people.

Wolves, mosquitoes and other creatures do not view others in terms of any morality or ethics.

Now, take the common spider in your home. If it’s not bothering you, it’s a good thing to have. It eliminates pests such as flies and mosquitoes. It’s a benefit.

However, should that spider overstep its “rightful role” and intrude into the wrong space, we kill it. Without any moral consideration.

That is, when the spider intrudes into our “space” too far, it puts itself in peril.

The same goes for higher order creatures such as mice, rats, racoons, bears, etc.

When bears intrude on your property and threaten your family, you shoot them. This isn’t a question for sane people. This is a question of self preservation.

The purpose here wasn’t to argue an infinite number of cases. The purpose was to argue a general case for moral/ethical considerations and reciprocity. Specifically, in cases where there is no reciprocity, there is no moral consideration.

(There are other cases, however, in the interests of moving along quickly. they are ignored.)

Moral and Ethical Consideration (2)

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Logic, Philosophy, Uncategorized | Posted on 26-06-2018

Moral or ethical consideration is spatially limited. (And moreover, limited by capacity or ability.)

That is, the further away a consideration, the less weight is given to it.

For example, should you be in a situation where someone is attacking another person unprovoked, you have a stronger duty to intervene and help the innocent victim. However, for events happening further away, the further away it is, the less duty you have to intervene.

This is made clear by example.

First, consider a morally praiseworthy action that you could perform, but that also requires your physical presence.

Next, consider the viability of you being able to perform that action in your immediate vicinity.

Repeat that consideration for varying distances:

  • Your hometown
  • A nearby city
  • A city 200+ km away
  • A city 1000+ km away
  • A city on the other side of the planet

It becomes increasingly apparent that any expectation for you to perform that action decreases as we go down the list. The reasons should be obvious.

One’s duty to act is on a gradient that coincides with one’s capacity to act.

We cannot expect people to act when they have no capacity or ability to do so.

Ironically, Cloudflare goes full Nazi to censor Nazis and realises that they just went full Nazi

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Australia, Censorship, Internet, Logic, Philosophy, Politics | Posted on 22-08-2017

Cloudflare is one of the more important companies on the Internet. If you’re unfamiliar with their name, you’ve certainly seen the results of their services.

In a recent event, Cloudflare dropped Daily Stormer as a client.

If you’re unfamiliar with Daily Stormer, count yourself lucky. They’re full on Nazis. Or were. They’re offline now.

(If I have to explain why Nazis are bad, please just go away.)

Matthew Prince from Cloudflare posted a well thought out blog post here:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

The irony is that they went full Nazi to censor Nazis, and at the end of the blog post, realise that they went full Nazi.

In the blog post, Matthew sides with “due process” over “free speech”:

Freedom of Speech < Due Process

The issue of who can and cannot be online has often been associated with Freedom of Speech. We think the more important principle is Due Process. I, personally, believe in strong Freedom of Speech protections, but I also acknowledge that it is a very American idea that is not shared globally. On the other hand, the concept of Due Process is close to universal. At its most basic, Due Process means that you should be able to know the rules a system will follow if you participate in that system.

Due Process requires that decisions be public and not arbitrary. It’s why we’ve always said that our policy is to follow the guidance of the law in the jurisdictions in which we operate. Law enforcement, legislators, and courts have the political legitimacy and predictability to make decisions on what content should be restricted. Companies should not.

This is entirely misguided. You can’t have due process if speech is muzzled. This should be obvious enough.

He also weighs in with some moral arguments:

You, like me, may believe that the Daily Stormer’s site is vile. You may believe it should be restricted. You may think the authors of the site should be prosecuted. Reasonable people can and do believe all those things. But having the mechanism of content control be vigilante hackers launching DDoS attacks subverts any rational concept of justice.

I think those are worth breaking down a bit more.

You, like me, may believe that the Daily Stormer’s site is vile.

That’s a personal opinion, but yes, I also find them vile.

You may believe it should be restricted.

Absolutely not. While I may find DS vile, I’m not willing to denigrate free speech to only speech that I don’t find vile. The only speech that may rightfully be restricted is that speech which is criminal in nature, such as incitement to violence, etc. This has been covered in literature extensively.

You may think the authors of the site should be prosecuted.

No. I don’t. It shouldn’t be a crime to be an asshole fucking loudmouth. There are many things that I find personally repulsive that I don’t think should be prosecuted. My opinion shouldn’t dictate how other people live their lives. Even if I find it abhorrent. (The exception being criminal behaviour, and again, this has been covered many times, so I won’t repeat it here.)

Reasonable people can and do believe all those things.

No. Reasonable people don’t believe all those things. You just went full fucking Nazi on actual Nazis and you’re trying to justify your horrific behaviour.

But having the mechanism of content control be vigilante hackers launching DDoS attacks subverts any rational concept of justice.

This is true. I have no dispute there. Due process needs to be followed, and in order for that to happen, people must be free to speak.

Then at the end of the post, Matthew seems to flip around somewhat, and realise that he and Cloudflare have crossed a very important line.

Someone on our team asked after I announced we were going to terminate the Daily Stormer: “Is this the day the Internet dies?” He was half joking, but only half. He’s no fan of the Daily Stormer or sites like it. But he does realize the risks of a company like Cloudflare getting into content policing.

That’s a telling and important bit, and perhaps the most important bit in the blog post.

He was half joking, but only half.

The point of free speech is that we need to tolerate (not accept!) things that we disagree with, and even things that we find horrific.

It’s that difference between tolerance and acceptance that seems to be blurred.

In 2012 Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” You can find it here:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

The authors argue for infanticide, or in plain English, murdering babies. They even extend it to murdering toddlers up to 3 years old.

While some people may not find murdering babies horrific, I do. However, I never considered that muzzling those people and censoring them to be an option.

I’m struggling to find anything that’s more horrific than murdering babies. Perhaps I’m lacking in some imagination.

Sure, we could talk about adding in other crimes, such as rape and torture, but at the end of the day, are they really all that much horrific than simply murdering toddlers and babies? I think that in those terms, we start to lose perspective as it’s so far beyond any semblance of morality or decency.

Still, there’s no excuse to censor those authors as far as I can see.

You don’t win against full Nazis by going full Nazi. Let the marketplace of ideas prevail. Most sane people reject Nazism, just as they reject infanticide. We don’t need to censor non-criminal speech.

Moral and Ethical Consideration (1)

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Logic, Philosophy | Posted on 11-01-2017

Some things are outside of the scope of morality and/or ethics.

When we ask questions about what is moral or ethical, we limit those questions to certain areas or topics or considerations. We do not ask whether it is murder to put rocks in a rock crusher. We do not ponder the ethics or morality of our actions when we dip a piece of celery or a baby carrot from a veggie platter into some delicious dip and eat it.

Rocks, carrots, celery, and many other things do not enter into our sense of what is moral or ethical.

When we mow the grass, we do not think about the feelings or life of our lawns. The same goes for trimming the hedges and trees around our homes.

Similarly, we do not think of the decision to drink coffee or tea as moral or ethical decisions, because they aren’t.

Whether we wear beige or grey or navy blue pants is another decision that is outside of the scope of morals and ethics.

But this is no surprise. Morality has a defined scope.

In the next post on this topic, we’ll look at some simple examples where morality begins to come into the equation, and how it can be blurry.

My Aim is to Horrify You with Yourself

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Philosophy, Politics, Religion | Posted on 08-01-2017

I’ve decided to write a series of non-linear posts that I’ll later reconstruct into a more coherent argument.

My next few posts will go over some rather simple things — things that may or may not be controversial. I’ll be referring back to them along the way here and there.

For the most part, they’ll be things that most people would agree with.

The latter few will be deeply troubling.

However, at the very least, for those capable of understanding or appreciating an argument, they should all be entertaining, and more-so towards the end.

 

US Marshal Shuts Down Cynic.me for Security Theatre

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Bitcoin, Canada, Philosophy, Police State, Rant, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 15-11-2014

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

So Deputy United States Marshal Criminal Investigator Maxime Vales (or one of his criminal cohorts) violated the TERM & CONDITIONS for the use of this site to view this (now password protected) page:

http://cynic.me/2014/10/24/silk-road-judge-doxxed-and-msm-lies-about-it/

He then contacted my Canadian hosting provider about it and had them take my site down today. (I’ve since gotten it back up, obviously!)

The post is about an Ars Technica article that falsely claims that this article (.onion link requires TOR) contains death threats against Katherine Bolan Forrest, who is the judge in the “Silk Road” case against Ross Ulbricht. There is no death threat in there. It’s not nice, but it isn’t a death threat either. Ars Technica lied.

For the sake of ease, completeness, and transparency (something that is completely foreign to government), I posted the entire unredacted, uncensored article (it’s not hard to find – more info below). This seems to have pissed off the US Marshals who sent this to my hosting provider:

Please be advised that the personal security of a United States Marshals Service protected person has been threatened by way of dox. United States District Court Judge Katherine Bolan Forrest’s restricted personal identifiable information, in violation of the Court Security Act of 2007 has been made public on the below listed website that is connected to GoDaddy as the sponsoring registrar. I am requesting that this restricted personal information be immediately removed from the website in order to ensure that no further threats to the security of Judge Forrest are carried out. I am also requesting that a representative from the legal department contact me as soon as possible regarding this sensitive matter.

This is nothing more than security theatre and scare-mongering. If anyone were to do anything to that judge, it would already have happened.

The original dox (.onion link requires TOR) link from the wiki site now returns a 404, but the dox archive (.onion link requires TOR) is still up, and the dox can be found here (.onion link requires TOR).

None of these things are difficult to find. Whether or not I publish the information is completely irrelevant to the security of the judge. Like, FFS… Justin Bieber has dox published (.onion link requires TOR), and he’s still alive!!! There are probably a lot more crazies out there that want him dead.

TERMS & CONDITIONS

I have made it explicitly clear that nobody in any government position is welcome at Cynic.me. That includes US marshals.

Unless Maxime Vales is psychic, I really have no clue how he could possibly abide by the T&C and know what was on that page, or any page at Cynic.me for that matter.

CENSORSHIP & CHILLING EFFECTS

There is no law against publishing publicly available information, which the information at the links above is.

This does nothing to protect the judge at all as I’ve outline above just how simple it is to find the information. A blog dedicated to technology, voluntaryism, and personal points of interest that has near zero readership except for a few popular posts isn’t going to make the smallest impact at all.

This is merely overreach and an attempt to scare me and others from publishing information that the US police state finds inconvenient.

If this can happen to me, it can happen to you. Whether or not you agree with anything I say isn’t particularly relevant. The point to free speech is to tolerate dissenting opinions.

HE SHOULD SIMPLY HAVE CONTACTED ME!

Maxime Vales is really a bit of a douche. Instead of contacting me and asking nicely, he went nuclear to have my site taken down.

But I most certainly would have taken it down had he just asked. Albeit, I would have to charge him a reasonable service fee. I think 144,341 bitcoins plus an additional 29,659 bitcoins as an “administrative fee” would be reasonable. (Ross certainly wouldn’t need to worry about paying for his defense anymore.)

WHAT TO DO?

Well, I certainly don’t want armed thugs harassing me for publishing publicly available information, so I’ve password protected the page for the moment. I’m a bit worried that the 8 character, lower case password might be easy to guess. Nah. I’m not worried. I’m sure it’s just fine.

If anyone has any good information, my ears are open.

DOUCHEBAGGERY

Now, I know that some people will say that it’s douchey to post dox information. Perhaps it is. But it’s more important to be open, transparent, and complete.

The point of my blog post was to point out blatant lies in the presstitute corporate-whore dinosaur lamestream media. They regular twist facts and often blatantly lie. This was one of those cases.

The issue was about a darkweb wiki post. I posted the entire article along with a link to it. Everything could be verified by checking my own post, and by checking the original.

You see, some of us out here actually believe in free speech (even speech that some people don’t like) and honesty, which we don’t get from the lamestream media.

I’m not interested in shining a flashlight on lies if I can shine a spotlight.

Remember:

THE FBI DOXED ROSS ULBRICHT FIRST!

Cheers,

Ryan

Poison in Alternative Media: The Real News and Reason TV

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Cynicism, Idiotic Statements, Logic, Philosophy, Rant | Posted on 02-05-2014

The alternative media delivers a far more accurate and better picture about what is going on in the world, but there are times when they have catastrophic failures and present the same talking points that you would expect from the bobble heads on MSNBC. No matter the source, one must always be vigilant to think critically about what is being said and not blindly trust a source simply because they’ve been correct in the past.

I recently saw 2 extreme failures (or perhaps lapses in judgement). One failure led me to abandon a particular source, while another caused me to lose a lot of respect for a journalist who I would otherwise consider near impeccable.

THE REAL NEWS

In what can only be considered a bubonic nuclear train wreck, Jaisal Noor of The Real News interviewed Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is a leftist hate organisation that targets pretty much anyone that isn’t a neo-liberal communist. While they may “get it right” about some organisations, they group together people like Judge Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul with organisations such as Stormfront.

Jaisal’s interview stopped short of being completely obsequious, but was never-the-less simply pandering to the extreme agenda of the SPLC. Listening to Mark Potok spew his venom and hatred either makes you vomit uncontrollably, or laugh hysterically at his lunacy.

This is that interview:

The lies and deceit out of Mark’s mouth start quick and never stop; he doesn’t waste much time before getting to “racist and anti-semitic”.

But do watch for yourself. If you wonder about any of the points Mark makes, you can easily do a tiny bit of digging to discover that he is lying or twisting the situation.

The comments below the video are filled with people unsubscribing from The Real News.

I got into a mini-discussion on Twitter with Jaisal, condemning his choice to give a platform to a hate group.

https://twitter.com/jaisalnoor/status/457520668914245632

Of course the land issue became “HE’S A RACIST”:

https://twitter.com/jaisalnoor/statuses/459354921746583553

your nut job rancher hero is a raging racist

Which should come as no surprise. The left invariably resorts to name-calling as it loses the debate due to a lack of logic, reason, and supporting facts/evidence.

But whether or not someone is or isn’t a racist has no bearing on their property rights. Though you wouldn’t know this if you’d ever heard any of the rhetoric from the left. For the left, it seems that natural rights are contingent upon your agreement with them.

Had Jaisal taken the time to actually look into what Cliven Bundy said, he would be hard pressed to accuse him of being racist. You can find Cliven Bundy’s remarks here:

And here with a full transcript of what he said, which you can compare against the convenient snippets found in the left-wing media:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/04/24/cliven-bundy-controversial-remarks-full-context-video-with-transcript/

For the full video, which is over an hour long, check here:

http://bambuser.com/v/4549915

One of the problems with the left is that leftist rarely ever give anything a charitable read. Their goal is to root out anything that could possibly be (mis)construed as other than what it is so that they can exploit it for political purposes. No big surprise there.

But, all the evidence is readily available and out in the open for anyone to verify.

REASON.TV

I was pretty shocked to hear Nick Gillespie in this video:

Reason.TV and Nick Gillespie are generally pretty darn good. They’re still pretty statist, but minarchism is a good deal closer to sanity than the authoritarianism preached by the left-wing communists and the right-wing fascists. (Is there a difference between them?)

The article for the video is here:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/29/3-policies-that-are-more-racist-than-don

From the video:

“Racist rants by federal land moocher Cliven Bundy…”

Seriously Nick? Really? At that point I figured that I’d stepped into the twilight zone. I lost a lot of respect for Reason and Nick there.

Speaking about Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling:

They can go fuck themselves.

Apparently Nick got his news about Bundy from Salon and MSNBC.

NOTE: I don’t watch professional sports. I have zero interest in the athletes, coaches, or team owners. I’ve not read anything significant about Donald Sterling or the accusations against him, and have nothing to say on that topic. So, maybe Nick is right about Donald going off and fucking himself. I don’t know.

Nick is way off base in his comments about Cliven Bundy. But aside from Nick accusing Bundy of being racist, perhaps more concerning are his accusation that Bundy is a “moocher” and assertion that the land belongs to the federal government. Nick’s accusation there is eerily reminiscent of what one would expect to hear out of the SPLC, while his assertion is flat-out statist.

The rest of the article is actually quite good. He nails 3 good points with good support and arguments. The “meat” of the article isn’t objectionable – it is his use of racism and Bundy as a “launch pad” for the article that is off-base.

POISON

While the first case with The Real News is more akin to a drinking glass full of poison on a generously prepared banquet table, the second case is far more subtle/insidious. Nick slips in a poison pill into what otherwise would have been a wonderful, tall glass of freshly squeezed juice. i.e. Where The Real News had an entire episode full of poison, Reason.TV merely poisoned a portion of the episode.

SCRUTINY & VIGILANCE

I won’t be watching any of The Real News anymore. The magnitude of the lack of judgement in giving the SPLC a platform is simply far too much to continue to attribute any credibility to them. i.e. There is no point in watching complete garbage and trying to make sense of it.

On the other hand, I’ll still continue to watch Reason.TV and read Reason. However, I will certainly be much more suspicious about what they report from now on.

Everyone has a lapse of judgement or makes an error every now and then. Expecting otherwise would be foolish.

I suppose the take-away lesson from the above is that even from sources that you would normally trust, it is still best to listen and read with a critical mind and not simply accept what is being presented to you. (This blog post included.)

At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own beliefs and actions. Very often we are deceived into believing horrible things. But it is not the “being deceived” that is the fault – it is the refusal to see through a deception that is a fault. This requires that we question our beliefs with the same or greater vigilance that we would apply to the messages we receive through others and the media, be that mainstream media or the alternative media.

Cheers,

Ryan

Jesus Is an Anarchist (Mirrored essay)

1

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Awake, Logic, Philosophy, Religion, Sovereignty, States | Posted on 26-04-2014

Tags:

There is an excellent essay called “Jesus Is an Anarchist” at http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html.

But it seems like Anti-state.com is no longer maintained, and the essay may disappear at some point. I’m mirroring it here to ensure that it is available in at least 1 other place. When the “anti-state.com” graphic logo is gone, then you’ll know that it’s disappeared.

This essay is an excellent read for anyone looking to learn a bit more about Jesus, Christianity, or anarchism. You don’t need to be religious to get a lot out of this essay, and you don’t need to be an anarchist to get a lot out of it.

As a side note, anyone interested in the occult will get some pretty deep insight here. I should also note that those with a superficial understanding of the occult will likely not understand that last sentence in the least. (“Occult” means “hidden”, and Redford strips away some superficial occult layers in this essay.)

Those who are more serious about reading and understanding might do well to read along with a KJV at the ready. Please note that there is a reference in the essay that appears to be a typo.

The complete essay is available at the bottom of this page as a zipped download.

 


Jesus Is an Anarchist

(A free-market/libertarian anarchist, that is–otherwise what is called an anarcho-capitalist.)

by James Redford

The above title may seem like strong words, for surely that can’t be correct? Jesus an anarchist? One must be joking, right?

Read the rest of this entry »

How to Make a Fortune in 3 Steps

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Awake, Money, Philosophy | Posted on 24-04-2014

Tags: ,

  1. Massively short the USD
  2. Buy all the food in the USA
  3. Burn all the food

PROFIT!!!

How hard would the USD crash with food riots everywhere?

(NOTE: This is only possible in fiatland.)

Why Rich People Should Do Less Time in Prison Than Poor People

0

Posted by Cynic | Posted in Anarchism / Voluntaryism, Logic, Philosophy, Stupid Questions | Posted on 18-04-2014

Tags: , ,

V is for VoluntaryRich people should do less prison time for the same crimes compared to poor people. Here’s why.

In the modern world, you must pay taxes or you go to prison.

If tax is not theft, then the government owns a percentage of the results/rewards/consequences of your labour/time.

In other words, you are not solely responsible for the consequences of your actions. The government assumes a percentage of the rewards/consequences of your actions through tax. (If they could take your smiles and laughs, I’m sure they would.)

However, different people pay different rates of tax, depending on how much they earn.

For example, someone making a little may pay 25% of the fruits of their labour to the government as tax, whereas someone who earns much more may pay 75% of what they earn to the government.

In both cases the government steps in to assume ownership or responsibility for a percentage.

Now, if two people in different tax brackets commit the same crime, would it not make sense for the government to be consistent in its role of assuming the consequences of people’s actions, e.g. the rewards of the fruits of people’s labours (consequences of their actions), should they not equally assume that same responsibility for negative consequences?

On a 10 year prison sentence, it would then be just for the poor person in the 25% tax bracket to only do 7.5 years in prison (25% belongs to the state), whereas it would be most just for the wealthy person in the 75% tax bracket to do a maximum of 2.5 years in prison (75% belongs to the state).

Rich people should be less accountable than poor people under the law because the law works by percentages, and everyone must be treated equally under the law according to the rule of law. Of percentages. Because logic. Errr… science… err…

Ahem…

Or maybe tax is just slavery by a percentage, and that’s the problem that should be dealt with, and the only way for the rule of law to be upheld is for NOBODY to take what doesn’t belong to them whether it be a percentage or an entirety.