Posts

Showing posts from 2016

The Philosophy of Human Flourishing [pt. 1]: The Tautological Nature of Reality

The nature of our reality begins with physical existence.  In this life, we remember nothing before we were born and remember nothing from after our death.  Therefore, it is necessary for any proper philosophical theory to answer the question of existence first, before we proceed to any further questions we derive from life itself.  Our physical existence begins and is contained in the physical world.  The physical world, understood through our empirical observation of it, is universal in that as more people observe something existing in it, the higher likelihood the object observed actually exists and the less likely that the observation was error or the observer deluded; this fact is why observation also acts as the basis of the scientific method.  Since anything living (that we can observe) must operate in the physical world and since the scientific method has worked correctly in providing new information about the physical world; the physical world must be universal to all things …

Segregation or Integration? — A False Dichotomy.

Segregation, defined as: “the separation of different groups” and integration, defined as: “the intermixing of groups previously separated” are both immoral actions when pursued by an individual not engaged in protecting a contractual agreement or enforcing local (subjective) rules on private property.  This rule could be restated to say integration or segregation can only be a valid action when one has made a contract to either pursue segregation or integration locally or has specific wishes that only certain people be allowed to use (or not use) a personal business or property.  First, this rule assumes that in a given situation there exists another state of neither segregation or integration; I will call this state of society ‘non-preferential’, as in non-preferential towards either the segregation or integration of peoples.  A non-preferential state would be the default state before the use of contract, i.e. before the claiming of property.  For example, if a person was to settle …

Social Guilt as Social Parasitism

When a person uses the term guilt to express a feeling, it is generally used to express two different meanings: I (individual guilt); the feeling produced when one commits an action unjustly harming another individual, or II (social guilt); the result of actions, perceived as unjust, that were committed by an person’s culture, nation, family or ancestors — actions not committed by the person that experiences guilt.  In biology, social parasitism is the action of taking advantage of interactions between the members of social organisms.  It involves manipulating various pre-existing or innate social structures of an organism to provide a reproductive benefit to an entity not originally affiliated or involved in the host’s social structure.  This parasitical interaction between different groups is not only a phenomenon of non-humans but, as I will argue, a phenomenon of human social relationships between multiple groups competing for cultural dominance of a society.

Our emotion of guilt …

Intellectual Property is Theft

Ordinarily, individuals possess an intuitionally based conception of theft.  If an individual possesses a good, and it is taken, he comprehends theft by way of the lost utility that the good provided.  Society also loses utility (social utility) because the individual who lost the good no longer can use it to satisfy his demands, while an individual who valued it less — or did not have the means to acquire the good — will (in general) use it to satisfy less valuable ends.  When the government grants an individual or corporation monopolistic control over an idea the rest of the people that comprehend the idea lose utility because they do not have the legal privilege to exchange or materialize the idea.  Theft can be defined as an action that lowers social utility.  Social utility is defined as the overall level of satisfaction or lack of uneasiness in society; it is representative of the value and abundance of choice in a given society.  Since all voluntary transactions between rationa…

The Case for Market Money

In modern times, money production has become the domain of governments, and no longer reflects the demand of the free market. Instead, governmental money is used because it is backed by the state. To protect the monopoly of money in the United States, it is illegal to create a currency that can compete with the Dollar. U.S. Code Section 486 states, "Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title (!1) or imprisoned not more than five years, or both". Recently, the United States government backed this law with force on two occasions. First in 2008, with the seizure of the gold-denominated reserves of the online currency E-gold, and secondly, with the arrest of Bernard von Nothaus, the creator of t…