the first principle we ought to start with is that each person has the right to their own person and property, and that it is immoral to try and take it from them for any cause.
Thought experiment: A dictator happens to own all the property on the planet. Until now, he has been giving everybody exactly enough food to survive. In a fit of rage/madness, he stops. You would support the death of all humans other than the dictator, rather than taking his property?
Good god, Aurini (2009) sounds quite pompous. I can’t even deal with reading his entire comment.
I’ve since drifted from Libertarian to full-fledged Reactionary. I will attempt to answer the question as such.
Either the Dictator is God, and we’re all damned anyway, so any question of ‘Rights’ is irrelevant—or the Dictator is Moral, in which case we will kill him by sodomizing him with a red-hot poker. He remains King, so long as he is a competent King (through our eyes, his police’s eyes, et cetera).
Supposition: the Dictator is God, but only a God—his peers see his mistreatment of us. Recognizing the fact that he is wasting Good Wheat, they murder him, and install a new Potus. Life returns to happiness—because happy citizens pay the most taxes (just ask Russia).
EDIT: Neither of which is an “End of History” solution, mind you, but I’m just beginning to realize how intractable the problem is. Obviously the new Dictator God will be just as idiotic and faliable as the last—which is why, as nice as Monarchy might seem, it ultimately self-destructs into Democracy, and then Dictatorship (just ask Marc Antony).
I’ve since drifted from Libertarian to full-fledged Reactionary
Most LessWrong posters are still firmly in the Cathedral and may fail to appreciate the significance of this, for they can not imagine a world outside it. A sizeable minority though has been influenced by the teachings of Darth Moldbug and the other lords of the alternative right, showing them a surprising taste of the true power of intellectual reaction.
Some such as I have embraced these teachings for now, since it seems the very complexity of the world around us demands it. For there are very difficult and old problems which despite protestation to the contrary remain unsolved. Yet sanity on them must be approached if humanity is to have any hope at all.
Either the Dictator is God, … or the Dictator is Moral
What’s this supposed to mean? First of all, the context of the hypothetical clearly indicates that the dictator is human. Second, what do you mean by ’Moral”?
Also, why is it suddenly more acceptable to murder than to just take their property? There’s these things called mental hospitals and prisons, you should look into them.
Edit: Look, it might help to define the LCPW in this context: the question is whether it is ever moral to take someone’s property from them, yeah? So focus on that by making the actual act of doing so really easy—he’s an absent dictator, owning all property on Rinax from his penthouse on Earth. One day he gets buried in paperwork and forgets to sign the form releasing the next year’s food allowance to his subjects. How long should they wait before they break open the shipping containers and steal his food?
The quote is a typo, incidentally—I meant to write “morTal”.
As seductive as the concept is, I see no firmament underlying the basis of ‘human rights’ - without a godhead who frimly endorses them, I’m not sure what they mean, beyond self-evident utlitarianism...
Oh Gods, have I become a Utlitarian? Possibly.
It’s hard to say; given that narrative of who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ is inevitably written by those who are on the firing squad, I tend not to like this question. I’m honestly not sure how to respond to your comment; what sort of reply would make sense? Let me ask you—was Darth Vader obviously the Good Guy, or was he a Villains whom you could Sympathize With?
Thought experiment: A dictator happens to own all the property on the planet. Until now, he has been giving everybody exactly enough food to survive. In a fit of rage/madness, he stops. You would support the death of all humans other than the dictator, rather than taking his property?
Good god, Aurini (2009) sounds quite pompous. I can’t even deal with reading his entire comment.
I’ve since drifted from Libertarian to full-fledged Reactionary. I will attempt to answer the question as such.
Either the Dictator is God, and we’re all damned anyway, so any question of ‘Rights’ is irrelevant—or the Dictator is Moral, in which case we will kill him by sodomizing him with a red-hot poker. He remains King, so long as he is a competent King (through our eyes, his police’s eyes, et cetera).
Supposition: the Dictator is God, but only a God—his peers see his mistreatment of us. Recognizing the fact that he is wasting Good Wheat, they murder him, and install a new Potus. Life returns to happiness—because happy citizens pay the most taxes (just ask Russia).
EDIT: Neither of which is an “End of History” solution, mind you, but I’m just beginning to realize how intractable the problem is. Obviously the new Dictator God will be just as idiotic and faliable as the last—which is why, as nice as Monarchy might seem, it ultimately self-destructs into Democracy, and then Dictatorship (just ask Marc Antony).
Most LessWrong posters are still firmly in the Cathedral and may fail to appreciate the significance of this, for they can not imagine a world outside it. A sizeable minority though has been influenced by the teachings of Darth Moldbug and the other lords of the alternative right, showing them a surprising taste of the true power of intellectual reaction.
Some such as I have embraced these teachings for now, since it seems the very complexity of the world around us demands it. For there are very difficult and old problems which despite protestation to the contrary remain unsolved. Yet sanity on them must be approached if humanity is to have any hope at all.
What an interesting way of dodging the question.
What’s this supposed to mean? First of all, the context of the hypothetical clearly indicates that the dictator is human. Second, what do you mean by ’Moral”?
Also, why is it suddenly more acceptable to murder than to just take their property? There’s these things called mental hospitals and prisons, you should look into them.
Edit: Look, it might help to define the LCPW in this context: the question is whether it is ever moral to take someone’s property from them, yeah? So focus on that by making the actual act of doing so really easy—he’s an absent dictator, owning all property on Rinax from his penthouse on Earth. One day he gets buried in paperwork and forgets to sign the form releasing the next year’s food allowance to his subjects. How long should they wait before they break open the shipping containers and steal his food?
Heh, I’m nothing if not Interesting.
The quote is a typo, incidentally—I meant to write “morTal”.
As seductive as the concept is, I see no firmament underlying the basis of ‘human rights’ - without a godhead who frimly endorses them, I’m not sure what they mean, beyond self-evident utlitarianism...
Oh Gods, have I become a Utlitarian? Possibly.
It’s hard to say; given that narrative of who is ‘right’ and who is ‘wrong’ is inevitably written by those who are on the firing squad, I tend not to like this question. I’m honestly not sure how to respond to your comment; what sort of reply would make sense? Let me ask you—was Darth Vader obviously the Good Guy, or was he a Villains whom you could Sympathize With?