Sup ya homos. Get in here and bring your Locke and Hobbes: It's philosophy time.
Today's topic: capitalism and ownership.
On what basis can you argue for the right of property, based on a naturalistic principle? I feel like this is the point a lot of commies fail to understand with capitalism is that without the right to ownership and protection of said ownership by the state there's no real incentive to either work or to innovate current means of production. There isn't an inherent right to own beyond the right that is required for a capitalist market society, as far as I can tell, by which I mean that the right to ownership of goods and means of production is only necessary if you wish to have a functioning society.
Recommended reading: > Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations > Cicero - Selected Writings > Milton Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom > Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead > John Locke - selections from the second treatise on government
Furthermore, the right to own guarantees the individual an ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Social mobility can only happen if the justice and liberty are equally granted to all citizens of the state, and one can only be free if you are given the right to groom yourself and thrive.
Property is a necessity for democratic liberalism and a society in which your merit is all that matters, regardless of your creed or origin.
Evan Martinez
Hate to be the guy who references an arguments and doesn't make one but >>>Hoppe. Just read all his works.
I've only touched on his works in some of my classes, but thanks! I'll give him a shot!
David Campbell
Nature runs this realm. The deeds of dead people mean nothing in the present day. The wicked people farmers have become pigs through their greed, and will all pay.
Hunter Ward
Yes. Start with "From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy", short and oh so sweet.
Good luck. Pic semi related
Elijah Kelly
"The labor theory of property (also called the labor theory of appropriation, the labor theory of ownership, the labor theory of entitlement, or principle of the first appropriation) is a theory of natural law that holds that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources. The theory has been used to justify the homestead principle, which holds that one may gain whole permanent ownership of an unowned natural resource by performing an act of original appropriation."
If one is to have labor and wages one needs a resource, a need for work, and a population of able-bodied workers prepared to sell their time and strength in return of income and the ability to invest their money. Property is a natural right, according to John Locke if you wish to extract value from natural resources, and thusly one can argue that property is required for large-scale industrious activity.
Adam Phillips
Thanks.
I find it so interesting that all social sciences but the economics are leaning towards the left end of the political spectrum. Why do you think that is?
Jason Myers
Dumping some aesthetics as well.
Jace Bell
All I want is for the world to be a wonderous highly technological capitalist society.
Christian Morgan
I'm unsure as to the claim that economy departments are not left leaning. But to answer the question for the other fields:
>March on/through the institutions (Deliberate infiltration) >Intellectuals always have to justify their own use - if they were posted for their real use 99% of acedemics would be fired. What better way to stay employed than through papa gov. Also they help each other - rig studies to rig laws to rig monopolies to...
Read T Sowells Intellectuals and society to understand how and why people like that lean the way they do. Great into redpill book.
Elijah Lee
I remember reading Atlas Shrugged a couple of years ago (hurr durr meme philosophy) and I was so scared of the potential future that might come about as prophesized by Rand in that novel. > Government takes over the industries. > Justifies their actions through the approval of academics and celebrities > Slave to laws and rules > The increasing amount of problems are deemed worthy sacrifices.
Jace Gray
I think the best thing to do is to act in a way that judges external events / news as irrelevant. You end up being what you expose yourself to, as that affects your thoughts, thoughts become actions, actions become habits, habits become character, character becomes destiny e.c.t. (t. forgot the philosophers name soz)
The News has the effect of turning one into a blind boxer, who only moves his arms to cover up where he has just been hit - thus always chasing and thus belonging wherever the opponent wishes. Don't let others steal your attention and time; no matter how affluent or kind, no one can replay time, it truly is the only thing that you own. No gov or law or social contract can remove it. Want to be ancap in a democratic society, don't hawk your time. Don't think it is your duty to pay attention to world events - and be guilted into giving others your destiny (by the logic above).
Of course this all depends on who you wish to be. The Fascist would say that the community's well-being is central to the man, and this is right IF the man decides that is who he should be. The point is to choose for yourself your own values, and notice from now on what you pay attention to. Entertainment kills.
Meme responsibly.
Joseph Cox
Final bump before zzz
Cooper Rivera
Drove across the US a few times. Kept asking myself who owns all this land ? It's endless amounts of land with nothing on it. Who owns it all ?
Give each man a parcel of land at birth. Give each man an interest free loan to build his home.
Stop all the fucking housing" codes for single family homes. Why the fuck is the government in my life when I want to add a room yet they allow apartment complexes to be built with particle board exteriors.
Ethan Brown
Only partially related to the thread but where do I start with philosophy. I have read a few things but I find it difficult sometimes to understand whats being said.
Where is a good starting point.
Alexander Sullivan
>Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations
Why read this book? Why not just read a college microeconomics textbook?
Jace Ward
You mean just political philosophy or philosophy more broadly?
Brody Cooper
Smith is arguably one of the single greatest moral philosophers to ever live. Reading this book means that you'll be given greater insight into the moral and ethical aspects of how capitalism and freedom is not only the greatest and most efficient way of redistributing goods and services, but it's also the most ethical way of designing society.
John Morgan
The naturalistic argument for ownership - at least in Locke - is that putting your labour into something (say, the pursuit of a hare), creates a psychological connection, and that if someone were to take it from you, it would be felt as a injury, and would bring about a conflict.
Marx's point about alienation is not unrelated. The prole puts his work into an object, but in the end has no right of ownership.
>who owns the land Ancient principle of the commons applies to things that are both : difficult or impossible to subdivide (say air, water, highways), and which human beings also have a natural claim to being able to have shared use of. Look into the Public Trust Doctrine; it's a main part of the social contract. Imagine all the property around every lake was owned, and you could never access the water without paying a toll?
Ethan Butler
Never read any of this. How does Usury play into it all ?
Logan Gray
Have some aesthetics.
Jonathan Davis
Both I guess. Probably more broad firstly however.
Juan Butler
>Imagine all the property around every lake was owned, and you could never access the water That describes the majority of lakes in the suburbs in the US. I wasn't talking about the air and the water. I was talking about the millions of acres of land that has nothing on it.
Should be easy enough to give everyone a little land in the US and not tax it. In LA alot of people lost homes that had been in their family for a couple generations because they couldn't afford to pay the property taxes, because the areas became so affluent.
Gavin Richardson
Just read a college textbook. I think reading philosophers' books directly as people in these threads recommend is a waste of time. If you have the time for that, you might as well study for a philosophy PhD and do it as your job.
Adrian Wright
You know philosophy has reached zero relevance because its now the hobby horse of literally every idiot in the English speaking world.
Elijah Cook
>no real incentive to either work or to innovate current means of production that's BS, how about having a comfortable and dignified life? that can be a better incentive than owning shit
Colton Wood
I know, it sucks when you can't even find a place to go swimming on a hot day. now imagine that were the case for the great lakes. No public parks, no public boat access, no rights to fish except for those who owned parcels with access...
Your assumption that land not being used by human beings is not useful is ecologically naive; imagine all the plots fenced in, what would happen to the animal populations? But I'm sure at times in history the U.S. gov. did pretty much give away tracts of land in order to encourage farming, etc.
Grayson Brown
individualism will only lead to decadence and separation of classes
Colton Smith
>philosophy is irrelevant (has no value) >because... makes a value statement and backs it up with a reason... sounds like raw material of philosophy.
Gavin Long
If the State is directing production, then how is the private firm any different from a state-owned organization?
Colton Hill
Locke was a retard. Property comes from the state and rights don't exist.
Henry Harris
Hoppe is a retard too.
Eli Kelly
distribution of profits?
>Property comes from the state and rights down exist. rights exist in most countries... delet thos
Aiden Cooper
the means of prodution are privately owned
Brandon Bailey
Been slowly working through this (though it's a pretty small book and if I actually sat down and read it I'd probably finish it in an evening). Pretty comfy, and stirring an interest in philosophy.
Parker Nelson
>Smith is arguably one of the single greatest moral philosophers to ever live Lol, morality is not real. Adam Smith was a fucking tard.
>capitalism and freedom is not only the greatest and most efficient way of redistributing goods and services, Lol, false. "Efficient" to what end? It's only efficient if you believe that the purpose of trade is to fulfill the various desires of individuals, which is not a natural assumption to make, and is even questionable then.
>capitalism and freedom is not only the greatest and most efficient way of redistributing goods and services, Morality is not real, therefore ethics is a circle jerk.
Chase Gomez
What are you, Ameri-fat? Are you a raging homosexual without any standards for how to conduct yourself?
Kill yourself and leave this world to those of us with an IQ above 75.
Robert Thomas
It isn't, which is the point. Private firms only create social chaos.
Gavin Collins
The right to own is guaranteed by might and might alone. Here’s how the debate is divided. Pick one: You have stuff Or You don’t have stuff More importantly, pick one of these: You are retarded and know you will never get stuff with your own ability and are probably too buttblasted to tolerate anyone else having stuff while you and your family sit on their fat asses for multiple generations Or You want to protect the stuff you have/plan to get in the future for yourself or descendants.
Now. You fight/vote for whichever side you fit on.
Gabriel Kelly
>morality is not real >rights don't exist Sounds like you're a strange form of realist my friend. Care to elaborate?
Levi Hall
desu I'd start with your Greeks, then skip to the Enlightenment (ignore everything from France) and work your way through English, Scottish and American versions before picking up anything contemporary. Perhaps keep a history book handy for context. Least that's what I plan to do should I ever kindle this budding interest in philosophy.
Dylan Green
>how is centralization different than de-centralization Tell me that’s not a serious question. Lmfao
Matthew Howard
>don't think thanks leaf, I can tell you do as you say
Hudson Kelly
What he means is this:
Oliver Parker
>rights exist in most countries Those are granted by the state and are properly termed "privileges." They are not "natural rights," which are fictions, rights that man is alleged to possess in a fictionalized anarchic "state of nature," created by tards/sophists like Locke.
Christopher Williams
>skip everything from France... l lol l >read in order to think, but DON'T READ THAT STUFF AND DON'T THINK ABOUT IT typical /pol intellectual
Joseph Hill
>t. Too incompetent and addicted to immediate gratification to work on multigenerational wealth building When your children grow up in poverty, you can just blame the rest of the country for not voting for Bernie 2.0
Carter Clark
huge distinction. I think a generous reading of Locke is that some conventions (such as the right to property) came into be because they reflected behaviour that was pre-legal (before the state). I agree that it can be misleading, but there's something worth understanding there.
Luis Brown
Everyone should read the decision in Johnson v. M’Intosh, a Supreme Court case about an indian selling his land to a private citizen.
Sums up property rights really nicely.
Lincoln Powell
Morality is not real. That is a fact. That doesn't mean there are not standards of behavior. There are standards, and they are created by those in power and enforced with violence. It is called law. Law exists and is real. Morality does not exist and is not real. Moral arguments and statements are just rhetoric used persuade others by appealing to emotion, but they have no truth value.
Grayson Brown
Of course property preempts the state, how can you build a state in the first place without a sense of property?
Carson Smith
way to double down on your overly simplistic worldview. Many forms of labour produce riches that can be inherited/passed down, and only one kind of said riches is money.
faggot
Ryder Jones
The French Enlightenment was not the whole of the Enlightenment, and hardly the most influential (on the real world) thinking of the period. Unassisted human reason? Give me a fucking break; the French Enlightenment advocated their so-called, ungrounded reason over simply things like scientific observation or collecting empirical evidence to arrive at a conclusion.
Nothing of fucking value.
David Cruz
>The right to own is guaranteed by might and might alone the might of a violent revolution to seize the means of production and eliminate the capitalist class? I approve
Lucas Harris
>he thinks morality has a real world manifestation Lmfao
Lucas Baker
Go ahead and try. I’ll be happy to play that game with you. Glad to know you’re done discussing things though. Here’s your (You)
Jaxon Howard
>everything in this world abides by mathematical rules. >but not humans >because >because it stupid lmao
Read more, pleb.
Henry Johnson
No shit Sherlock. Thanks for teaching me that money is only one form of valuable resource. I totally never knew that
Adam Jones
MILTON FRIEDMAN
I can fap to it.
Wyatt Ortiz
im not done, why would I?
Joshua Gutierrez
Cuz I want to own stuff. I don't need to justify this faggot. #BroScience
Zachary Morris
>he still thinks subjective morals are objective real world physical things Morals are nothing without force to reinforce them, whether that is as direct as violence or as subtle as social pressure. Desire to be free of violence, or accepted in society are the only things holding up a structure in society. Morality is just a byproduct of it I’m sorry you’re too retarded to wrap your head around that
Hunter Jenkins
Here's how. First we note that hippy-like "share everything" only works in closely-related groups, who share basically the same genes. Then it makes sense to work your fingers to the bone to help your lazy cousin survive and eventually impregnate someone.
In larger societies, in which potentially competing genomes exist, co-operation needs to be codified so that non- or anti-cooperation is detected and avoided (preventing parasitic exploitation). One of the many instincts we evolved for this (and yes we have evolved in the time since forming large societies, see Haidt) is a sense of disgust at the breaking of promises. And since to participate in the "property game" is to make a promise, to then steal property is to break the promise. Of course this assumes that the person taking your stuff themselves acts as though they believe in properly - well, guess what, they always do.
William Collins
>An argument with no truth value is not real >there are standards (i.e. conventions), that determine whether something is considered right or wrong. I see the value of your distinction between propositions with truth values, and those without, but it seems strange to say that morality is not real. Surely morals are not objects, I'll give you that.
Brayden Murphy
>morality isn't real >laws are real
You are retarded.
Andrew Sanders
>he still thinks that only objects are real. >he still thinks that anyone who affirms the meaning of moral statements is affirming that morals must be objects.
Nathan Brooks
> Morals are nothing without force to reinforce them
Codswallop. Morals are a code first and foremost. And they are based on aspects of disposition that we evolved in order to be able to form stable civilizations. Self-enforcement is never violent, and enforcement on others is principally mediated by distancing, as in "you're being immoral, so I'll just walk away". Of course, if the distancing is prevented that can lead to violence, but then violence was used to constrain the person so they couldn't distance in the first place. Probably by an open-minded person with big ideas for how society should work - THAT'S where the violence really comes from.
Jeremiah Miller
Did I claim it was the whole enlightenment? If that's the case then the reader will discover as much. Rousseau was still very influential on U.S. politics even if he under appreciated science, and Trump even summoned some of his ideas during his campaign.
Noah Gutierrez
Morals are subjective. They are arbitrary, yet necessary in some form. Like rules in a game. Punishment for breaking the rules enforces them, and conditions the players to expect others to abide by the same rules. Children, when playing a game, get very upset when playing a game and someone breaks the rules on them or abuses a loophole or introduce a new rule or something, because they readily accepted the rules and conditioned to them, and sudden changes seem unfair to them. Likewise in society with adults, morality is arbitrarily chosen to “keep the game going” and keep it “fun enough that people will play”, enforced through conditioning, and the adults act just the same as the children.
However, we don’t play the same game as the generation before us in society now, we have democracy and rapid changes to the rules, and every new generation comes in to change the rules to their liking. But I digress.
>he thinks things that aren’t real are real just because he doesn’t understand how they manifest
Caleb Mitchell
Morals are nothing more than the rules of the game, and the game only needs to be fun enough for everyone to keep playing. There is no objective reasoning for any moral other than that.
Bentley Russell
>There are standards, and they are created by those in power and enforced with violence.
Incorrecto. This is basically Marxism.
We have evolved significantly in the last 50,000 years and even 10,000 years. That's enough to adapt to being good at forming civilizations.
Power is somewhat peripheral - at least until Marxists and other fantasizing goons use the delusion that power is everything as a pretext to concentrating all the power with themselves - at the cost of destroying the very civilization they calim to be trying to improve.
Bentley Thompson
>naturalistic principle Are the requirements for advantageous functioning of society not themselves an outgrowth of naturalistic principles? The nations of the world exist in an implicit contest with each other even when they exist in peace and friendship, for they exist relative to each other in many ways and can be evaluated for comparison. We may learn from this about the natural processes underpinning political economy. We may compare the fate of nations to each other and see which ones have risen or fallen, and in which ways. We see as well that even in small social laboratories functioning property rights have produced excellent results. This underlies the successes achieved by small, wealthy, neutral countries. Such nations rise on capitalist endeavor. Socialism rose on similar claims of being materially demonstrated by history. However, capitalism's history at this point extends both before and after socialism's period of ascent. Socialism's claims have borne poor results in the same laboratory of nations that has so vigorously rewarded nations with functioning property regimes. Where are there today the greatest masses of discontented and disenfranchised people? ...hey, are we all putting on a soap opera for the benefit of third world nations to distract their miserable but gradually more internet-connected publics? No, that's dumb. Forget I said anything.
Hey! Listen to this instead!
The wealth of nations still today arises from man seeking to rise, and learning to rise in concert with others because that permits also that he should rise farther himself. For the harm it does to human ambition: Far from breaking the chains of man, socialism forges them anew and tells a man those chains are forever a little too hard to break. Capitalism is an incandescence that may prove false; socialism is a sure but softened death.
Even the prole gains at least property in his wages.
Camden Reyes
No it’s basically every system. The threat of violence is a very primitive method of enforcing this but he IS correct. Society is a game like I said. If you want people to play it (stay in your state, contribute to it, etc), which is beneficial to you, the statesman, then you must provide an objectively beneficial environment for them. So you set up rules for the game (morality) that both keep the game running and satisfy the objective needs of the people/players (they are fed, entertained, given a sense of purpose)
Jacob Wright
That's pretty close to the truth. We have to add that the constraints (and opportunities) of the environment factor into the game too. Morality mostly plays a "costly punishment" role, in which individuals incur occasional short-term cost in order to shift the average strategy used across the board toward more co-operation. You could alternatively say that mortality is part of a group-level evolution process that makes the group into an environment for individuals in which the evolutionary pressure on them is to become more co-operative.
So, while I think the "root" reasoning for morality has to be evolution (and I mean multi-level, civilization-timescale evolution), I do agree that game theory is an important explanatory tool for this stuff.
Landon Sanchez
>are these really the rules? >yes but they're not real >? then what are the real rules? >there are no rules >so there are no consequences if I don't follow the rules?
>these are the rules of the game is that true or false? If you were to give a description of human history and you left out the concept of morality, how impoverished would your picture be? After all, your definition of what is real and what is an arbitrary convention, so why should I accept it?
William Rivera
Cooperation is necessary yeah. Morality doesn’t quite translate directly into rules, but morality is more like the underlying philosophies that as you say, make the individuals become a group, and the laws or rules must be justified by the morals or philosophies. Either can come first though, you can build society off philosophy and moral, and make rules after, or be more “logical” and design rules first, and let the rules guide the morality.
Dylan Cooper
>even the prole gains at least the property in his wages. Really? In the time it takes him to make a widget he earns enough to buy that widget? (I'm not saying he should, just saying he doesn't).
Ryder Robinson
...but we apply moral standards to our leaders; who sets them?
You're slipping into Marxism with this "those in power set the rules so they stay in power". Most people with power don't keep it for long - how do you explain that? (same with Money - the 1% is continually changing).
The real truth about authority, by the way, is that people obey authority if they believe the group will - so it's just an exploitation of underlying herd behavior, which itself evolved to protect individuals from external threats.
So when the external threat recedes, we often ditch our leader, as was done with Churchill for example. In spite of being one of the most respected leaders the UK ever had, who should have had no trouble getting the UK to adopt his moral code (and hence bolster his power), he was binned overnight as soon as the war was definitely over.
Jayden Richardson
Stop pretending you don’t understand or I’m going to ignore you. You accept it because it is objectively good for you, or you decline it because it is objectively more beneficial for you to fight against it. That is very plain to understand and answered in the original comment.
Brody Thomas
Accepting the state, private property, etc.
If one then accepts the necessity of the state in legitimizing private property, how does one address the argument that this property is in fact the property of the state, and not any one individual?
I have been having a hard time with that. Do we go back to the old social contract argument, and then somehow get back into some wishy-washy discussion about what is and isn't coercive?
Also, if we ignore the above, and accept the necessity of capitalism as a system, how can we address some of the undesirable conclusions of the system?
E.g. overconsumption, commodification of everything, hedonistic/materialistic tendencies, etc.
Interested in some of your thought on this, I'm still finding my way through what social structure jives with my beliefs and desires for my fellow men.
Jacob Young
Democracy is a more complex system because morality and rules are flowing in both directions. I am describing things from the perspective of an absolute power statesman. Democracy changes every generation, as morality tends to stick and undergo moderate changes at best from one generation to the next, but rules themselves are much less enforced, and traditions are lost. Tradition and morality both impact each other, so when morality changes on its own, tradition follows to keep consistency, and when tradition is lost/changes all on its own, any moralities it is tied into are also weakened or affected appropriately.
>Stop doing philosophy Look mate, I never claimed that morals were objective because I'm not retarded. They do not belong to the world of objects. My dispute with you is a meaningful one: it has to do with where you draw the boundaries on the concept 'real.' But yes, it has grown tedious.
Wyatt Gonzalez
By nature you own nothing except your body and soul. Only by fortune and social convention do you "own" property. You didn't build that: you were lucky enough to be born into circumstances that allowed you to pretend to have a better claim to property than someone else who was, after all, born under the same sky and breathes the same air as you. Somehow you argue that a few grams of gold or clods of earth "belong" to you, but you do not make the same argument about the air, because you know how foolish you would sound so blatantly contradicting nature.
In truth, all you can rightfully claim as yours is your body, which is why any law that takes away a woman's natural rights over her body is inherently unjust.
Jose Thompson
>talking this much about something that's not real But if that happens in democracy it is only because power is distributed differently. You're still arguing that might makes right, and so it's difficult to see how you escape the Hegelian/Marxist view of history.
Leo Brown
>own your body who owns it? who/where are you? are you the homunculus in the head? In what direction do I ask the question for you to produce your deed? >a body is not something that I have, it is something that I am.
Zachary Long
Good points
Cameron Carter
It’s tedious because unlike the bong, you can’t just ask a question directly. I don’t see what there is to escape. Marx made some decent analysis, but he subjected those analyses to his morality which was wrong. You want people to participate in your society, but you ultimately want your society to be productive more than you want people to participate in it, because it is the productiveness, not the people, that is objectively beneficial to the statesman. If society was more productive by splitting resources equally all communistically like Marx would like to, and accepting all the peoples of the world, then that would be fine, but it’s not objectively more productive, and it objectively diminishes your power if you are the statesman, and if you are the individual in a democratic state, then it still diminishes your power to control your destiny, and your potential upwards movement over generations.
Cameron Young
He gains the entire property he agreed to do the work in exchange for. He doesn't gain the entire property of the widget, because he didn't produce the entire value of the widget. Many other people went into the production of every widget. Not every manager is useful, but people with useless managers should try taking their own productive skills elsewhere.
James Thompson
Sorry I didn't play student well enough professor. I'm not even sure what the second part means here. Are these meant to be empirical claims about statesmen? You certainly seem to imply they are factual statements, yet you provide no evidence for them, you just declare them.
Carson Wilson
But yes, there’s no absolute answer, and no person can design the system that works. The system must be a constant flow of battle between the few who have united in tyranny and the many who have not united in envy. The way to keep the system alive, is to let that battle play out in a civilized manner. I would never dare to claim an entire set of values is superior, and as fears, we kinda have to live in a wishy washy arrangement of constant debate. That or we need an absolute ruler to dictate policy and enforce it.
Dylan Harris
I think the problem is that you were calling him out on arguing his points in a manner not to your taste but the method of doing this that you chose was not to his. You'll have to back down first, because I've decided that this is a recursive situation. Sorry about that.
Oliver Peterson
You don’t get it because you can’t stop subjecting your choice policy to your morality, you’ve never stepped back from your morality to see why it’s justified. It’s justified because it is objectively beneficial for you to hold for social or resource based reasons. You help others for social reasons, and social value can be very beneficial especially if you are creative with it, but it isn’t a finite resource, and you can’t do anything without resources. And there are many ways to have social value and unity, especially if you are creative, so there is no single method of rule for effectiveness. As long as you have both your resources, and your unity/social value, it matters not how you got them.
Jayden Ross
Yes, of course there are other inputs to the value. Do you agree that often part of the value comes from ecological, or geological processes? So why does the capitalist get to claim that value?
Ryan Sullivan
actually, I called him out his definition of the concept 'real', not so much on his method of argument. I only did that in response to his critique of mine. might makes right, but we're all equal on this board friendo.
Asher Brooks
>Marx made some decent analysis, but he subjected those analyses to his morality which was wrong.
If his analysis were good, he'd see the problems in his morals.
We only need morality because, although analysis could do better in principal, we're all shockingly bad at it. Morality is more consistently reliable, in spite of its shortcomings.
Lenin, Hitler etc abandoned morality (or invented their own, which is the same thing) in favour of big ideas. All acts of evil, including Holocaust, Gulags etc can be explained by a mixture of resentment and open-mindedness. The latter is required to generate the rationales for overturning traditional morality. It will tend to do that above about 2-sigma trait openness. Above 3-sigma, even the sanctity of human life seems as nothing to the Mighty Idea. Above 4 sigma and you're becoming dissociative and schizo-type.
Dylan Peterson
you've certainly made a lot of personal allegations about me during this argument buddy. You're speaking nonsense and you think you're preaching an objective gospel. I think you lack humility, which is actually quite important when doing philosophy.
Brody Morales
Autism, explain why your body doesn't belong to your parents? They're the ones that "built" it, they're the ones that created the circumstances that led to your birth
Asher Collins
I could call you out on your definition of "on" - would you experience that as a criticism of your method of argument, or as a necessary element of the discussion?
