For liberty.

For only through liberty can we achieve genuine equality, wealth, and peace (which is what most people really want―enforced personal safety―at the foundation of their nationalist thoughts).

Along the way, we as a species will learn that equality is not equivalence, wealth is not riches, and peace is not protection.

Great discussion, gentlemen. (And lady? I think the topic was started by one.) Like BCT/politics before the place went to shit.


> On May 31, 2014, at 13:26, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:
>
> Yeah but people are charismatic and people follow them because they
> speak to human values.
> To penetrate and understand why these concepts are able to speak to
> something deep inside us, is to understand how and why we become
> corrupted, and to more better make ethical decisions.
>
> Ethics is not about "being good". Ethics is about making the right
> decisions when the right decision isn't always clear.
> The decision to eliminate the Jews was called the "Final Solution" and
> wasn't an overnight decision. It was a thousand small steps.
>
> Now we find ourselves in a new struggle between the old industrialists
> (pyramids, verticalists, cathedrals) and the new technologists. The last
> century was a power struggle over class warfare with the communists and
> capitalists fighting over who should own the power.
> Every power group in history that gains power, does it for some "greater
> good" (whatever their objectives are) which many times involves
> eliminating new rivals (old allies) and purges.
> I don't believe in power sharing either.
>
> As a political force, we've been dispossessed and crushed throughout
> history (at the first signs of success), but with the new technologies,
> and new forms of organisation bringing untold utility through market
> forces, time is ticking on central power.
> For the first time in history, we as a free people are armed and empowered.
> To stick it to the man.
> And promote a new form of thinking.
>
> Not for equality, not for a nation, not for wealth.
> But for liberty.
>
>> On 05/31/2014 07:09 PM, Kristov Atlas wrote:
>> We all have core beliefs of about fundamental areas of philosophy,
>> including morality and epistemology, whether acknowledged or not. For
>> most of us, these beliefs are imposed by our families and society, and
>> for most of us, these beliefs will go unexamined. I find it quite
>> engaging to explore those beliefs, but so far I get that the majority of
>> the list is not interested in those topics or doesn't care to explore
>> them in this list, at least. With this consideration, I don't plan to
>> discuss it more than this post.
>>
>> Charisma and talking from the heart do not make you a good guy. They may
>> mean that you are charismatic or persuasive, but I do not accept your
>> proposed moral relativism. Nor do I accept the label of "bad guy" for
>> myself. I don't get the sense that you are a bad guy, either, Amir, but
>> it's your call whether to accept it for yourself.
>>
>> Acknowledging someone's evil doesn't mean that I won't learn from him.
>> On the contrary, I learn much from evil people. And the fact that I
>> learn from someone doesn't make them good, or justify their behavior.
>>
>> Talking about virtuous topics at a conference is extremely different
>> from what Hitler did or starting a company to data mine for the CIA.
>> Suggesting otherwise strains the limits of credulity. "Systems of
>> control" is a wonderfully morally ambiguous phrase that obscures the
>> line between people who initiate violence those who do not. Government
>> agencies, militaries, genocidal dictators... these are not morally
>> opaque realms.
>>
>> Intentions are not always empirically observable, but behavior always is.
>>
>> -Kristov
>>
>>> On 05/31/2014 12:29 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
>>> Hitler was a good guy, and we're all bad guys too :) If you listen to
>>> his speeches, so much charisma, talking from the heart.
>>> We should never hand wave fascists as "that crowd" but try to understand
>>> the logic so we can truly undermine it.
>>> It's not so shallow as you think, and more pervasive than we realise.
>>>
>>> Would you go to a Bilderburg meeting to advocate? It can be argued both
>>> ways. In the end you manage to convince yourself of becoming a
>>> Bilderburger consorting with aristocrats.
>>>
>>> Peter Thiel seems like the guy doing one thing with the left hand, and
>>> another with the right.
>>> I will be sure to ask him about his reasoning simply to understand when
>>> I meet him.
>>>
>>> How about all the people here that participated in the Bitcoin
>>> Foundation conference? It's really not so different when you compare...
>>> Cody said he'd love to go, and many of our friends attended.
>>>
>>> Are you undermining a system of control, or are you justifying your
>>> participation? The lines aren't so clear sometimes, and the road paved
>>> good intentions.
>>>
>>>> On 05/31/2014 02:24 PM, Kristov Atlas wrote:
>>>>> On 05/31/2014 02:08 AM, Josh Walker wrote:
>>>>> THIS. Exactly this. The thing we must not forget, is that in all
>>>>> likelihood Hitler himself awoke believing he was doing good. The
>>>>> capability for self-deception is a defining characteristic of our
>>>>> sentience. It's scary, and we should never stop worrying that we could
>>>>> become equally misguided.
>>>>>
>>>>> For this reason, I am very nervous around anyone who appoints
>>>>> themselves judge and jury, declaring things black and white, with an
>>>>> "I would never…". No offense intended, Kristoff: We've hung out, and I
>>>>> like you very much. I just urge you to be careful, because as soon as
>>>>> we assume to be the side of universal good, and stop seeking to
>>>>> understand how others have arrived at their positions, we are just as
>>>>> close and just as likely the bad guy as they are.
>>>> I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, again.
>>>>
>>>> But no, there is no scenario in which my understanding of ethics and
>>>> myself leads me to become like Hitler. There is no mystery about what
>>>> Hitler led to his behavior -- childhood trauma leading to psychopathic
>>>> behavior, and an utter lack of principles. Objective ethics (when
>>>> correct and applied universally) do not lead you toward evil, but
>>>> liberate you from it. It's understandably scary since ethics were
>>>> invented for the purpose of and used for manipulation for vast swaths of
>>>> human history, but the study has been remarkably refined by the exertion
>>>> of *actual* philosophy in the last few decades. This study is not
>>>> complete, but the principles are sound, just as we currently have a
>>>> sound approach to building bridges that don't collapse.
>>>>
>>>> As modern abolitionists, I encourage allies to wield principled
>>>> morality. Arguing about how the cotton will picked in the future is dumb.
>>>>
>>>> -Kristov
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem