Why (anarcho) Capitalism? Part Three: Natural Law

It has been a while since I've talked about this topic, but it is something that I am planning on carrying through to the very bitter end. Whether that end is my own, that of our current political system, or of everything as we know it.

I'll continue my defense by bringing out the old Libertarian chestnut known as "natural law." The debates about "natural versus man-made" laws supposedly thrive in institutions of higher learning across the country, but in the end of most of these farcical lessons, all reverence is directed toward man's law. Man's increasingly convoluted law. Man's law created by a supposedly enlightened profession of legislators, enforced by the noble officers of the law, and meted out by the noblest branch of justice. It really is a picture perfect fairy tale.

Man's law is most often ignoble in practice (just think for a second and you can name at least a dozen laws that make you either laugh or cry). Yet in theory, man's law takes on the nobility and mythical proportions of a Norman Rockwell painting. Or Jesus holding hands with Abraham Lincoln. Something like that. Something that it would be almost sacrilege to criticize outright.

Sure, you can criticize this law or that law, but the entire body of man-made law? You must be some sort of mad anarchist! Well, I am.

What is natural law? Wikipedia defines it so:

Natural law or the law of nature is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. The phrase natural law opposed to the positive law (which is man-made) of a given community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Here is the theory of natural law put into the simplest terms of which I can think.

Every creature on this earth is born with a body of some sort. Human beings, known to possess the most evolved levels of consciousness, can be said to possess free will. By their very nature, human beings must have control over their own bodies and minds in order to exercise free will.

That an invidual owns his/her mind and body is the first law of existence and the first tenet of natural law.

Property is the ownership of matter. A right to property is inexorable from biological existence, as demonstrated by the ownership of body and mind.

How do positive (man-made) laws contradict this first fundamental reality?

• Drug laws prohibit what you may do with your bodily property
• Censorship laws prohibit to what use you may apply the property of your mind
• Wage laws restrict the rights you possess to sell your bodily labor for whatever price you desire
• Prostitution laws restrict your right to sell your body
• Compulsory public education kidnaps the bodies and minds of children without their consent, overlooking their natural rights
• Forced immunization laws put chemicals into your body against your will
• Laws against suicide abridge your right to dispose of your property as you see fit
• The State itself exists because of the power it exerts over the life of your body
• Conscription laws consider your body to be the property of the State first and foremost
• Income tax laws consider the labors of your body to be property of the State in proportion to your productivity

Does it seem like man-made law recognizes your right to your own body?

Next, it observed that the consciousness of man controls his mind, which in turn controls his body. The body brings man's will into existence by manipulating matter and creating something useful to man.

For example, berries grow on bushes in a state of nature. In order to eat these berries, a man must spend time identifying them and collecting them. A basketful of berries is quite different from berries in a state of nature, and can be easily identified as the property of the man who worked to collect them. A person who steals another man's basket of berries would understand that this action represents stealing, because it represents the literal theft of the fruits of labor.

That property rights are created by transforming nature into something useful and desirable by man is the second tenet of natural law.

In order for theft to occur, there must be a transformation of something from its state of nature. Taking a stick from the forest is amoral. Taking a hand-carved walking stick from someone's front porch is immoral.

How do positive (man-made) laws contradict this second fundamental tenet?

• Tax laws of any sort involve the theft of productive labor
• Eminent domain laws consider all property rights to exist at the discretion of the State, and give the State the "right" to repossess all property at its discretion
• Land being used productively but without a government permit is subject to fines and seizure
• Safety laws and regulations, such as seatbelt laws, dictate how your private property must be used... or else
• Licensing laws manipulate the free flow of private capital
• Banking laws, particularly those effecting lending, manipulate the free flow of private capital
• Increasingly draconian "War on Terror" laws allow enforcement officers to search and seize any private property without a warrant

I could go on and on, but I think you could build your own case against positive law at this point.

There is a bit more to natural law theory than what has been presented, but you already know enough at this point to philosophically piss all over any proponent of positive law. So why is positive law so widely accepted? Because the aristocrats have so much to gain by keeping you and the other serfs tied down. And the other serfs get uncomfortable when you point out the gun in the room.

So by all means, keep pointing to the damned gun.

The Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever

About two years ago, I learned about the amazing and seemingly inevitabe destiny of mankind to saturate all matter in the universe with consciousness. Futurist Ray Kurzweil presents page after page of compelling evidence for a technological Singularity in his 2005 book, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Reading this book forever changed the way I look at the world around me. I can't help but think "OH WOWIE-ZOWIE!" everytime I see a new piece of technological progress. I can appreciate innovation for its own value and because I know we are soaring ever higher in the realms of expanded consciousness.

Dying is the tragic and as of yet irrevocable loss of the unique patterns that make us who we are.

Not that dying doesn't always suck, but wouldn't it be cosmic irony to be the last human being to ever die involuntarily? No mind backups, no digital selves, no nanorobotic life-support systems, none of the benefits of the digital revolution. Just cold, limp, decaying dumb matter where there was once a mind running over with the patterns of thought.

I do not want to die. Ever.

And if the philosophical implications of "cosmic evolution" are correct, then I will never have to die. How you ask?

Not long after reading The Singularity Is Near, I picked up another book called The Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever. This book was co-authored by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman, a practitioner of naturopathic medicine. Once again, one of Kurzweil's books radically changed the way I look at the world. I began to see the connection between diet and health. Not just to understand that there is one, but to clearly see what happens biologically and chemically when you introduce different vitamins and nutrients to your body.

The research in the book was cutting edge at the time of its publication, but the scientific insights when it comes to heavy-hitters like Vitamin D and Resveratrol have grown exponentially. However, I still highly recommend the advice they had to offer when it comes to diet and especially when it comes to choosing how to supplement your diet. If you have the time and are curious, I think you would find this Short Guide to a Long Life summary to be very worthwhile to read. It is basically all of the key points contained in their book, minus the scientific evidence and explanations.

There are very few diseases that cannot be prevented if you take the time to understand your biological machine. The whole of consciousness may seem mind-boggling, but the fact that you are the aggregate of a finite number of cells with a finite number of biological processes means that you can begin to understand in great detail how you work. And once you understand the how, you can take your destiny into your own hands.

There is so much to live for even if we weren't on the brink of a technological Singularity. Doesn't the fact that we are make your lifestyle choices even more important?

Please don't die. Ever.

New music on the Billions & Billions site!

Check out the two "new" songs posted up on the Billions and Billions site!

Credits:

Legends of Soultar (Singularity is near)

• Loren Gunning-- rice shaker, drums, guitar
• Justin Watson-- bass
• Taylor Smith-- slide guitar, Latvian vocals, English vocals
• Nick Cole-- guitars, mandolin, cello, violin

Psychedelic Blues

• Loren Gunning-- drums, guitar
• Justin Watson-- bass, trumpet, cornet
• Taylor Smith-- vocals
• Nick Cole-- vocals, guitar, mandolin, cello, viola, violin, sound clips

I love being strong!

I just got back from a late-night visit to the gym followed by an overpriced swig of Cuppy's Coffee, and I feel fantastic!

It's remarkable to me that up until a year or so ago, I was vehemently opposed to exercise. I was of the opinion that it could not improve one's quality of life. I once told somebody that the months they were adding on to their life by exercising were all being spent on a treadmill anyway, so it seemed kind of pointless.

I haven't always been a philosopher, as you can tell.

There is scientific evidence to suggest that exercise can improve energy, mood, stress, and disease immunity, to name just a few of the benefits. My personal experience confirms all of this. Although the "I love being strong" meme is a bit a joke, I think there is a lot of truth in it. I always leave the gym with a big smile just dying to say to somebody "I LOVE BEING STRONG!" Or more appropriately, I love my body, I love being me, I love being alive. I love feeling healthy and alive.

I also love the power I have to shape my body. Although this power is almost certain to increase infinitely over the next decades thanks to biotechnology, it is still an incredibly profound thought that humans have always had so much power over their biological forms.

From the dawn of civilization, philosophers and artists have admired the beauty of the human form. Ancient Greek sculptors carved marble into the image of well-toned muscles and alluring symmetry. Gymnasiums in the Classical world were places for exercises of the body and the mind, and were available for use by all of those considered citizens (sadly for philosophy, Aristotle did attempt to justify the de facto existence of slavery). My point is that the love of one's body is ancient. And biologically imperative, I would argue.

I think too many people today sabotage their self-esteem by not taking care of their bodies. They might believe that their appearance is superficial and it shouldn't concern them, which is the lie that I believed for a long time. It might be true that appearance is superficial, but your appearance is the only form that you have in the world. Like it or not, the way you appear is exactly how others see you. Your mind cannot manifest itself in reality except by its works. And no matter how strong your own opinion of yourself, it will invariably be influenced to some degree by what others think of you. Moreso the more you value the person.

People who complain about being unattractive or overweight are asking you to control their self-image anxieties by coddling them with lies. Very few people alive have a legitimate reason to mope about how they look, because they have unimaginable power to sculpt their bodies with exercise. Or to change their dorky hairstyle. Or to buy more aesthetically pleasing clothing.

I've found that by working out for just 15-30 minutes every other day has improved my self-esteem and self-image enormously. That in itself is valuable, even if no one ever notices a difference in my appearance.

I'm sure it is different for men than women (sorry to bore you, Rachel), but there is something really awesome about looking at your own body in a mirror and seeing well-toned muscles in a place where you never had seen them before. I feel like running up to strangers and flexing my biceps in their face while saying "SEE! Look what I did!" :P

"I told me!"

I enjoyed watching Short Circuit this weekend. I particularly liked that the robot was against using violence. It reinforced a lot of what I believe when it comes to morality: that we understand it instinctually.

Of course I know it's wrong to kill, but who told you?

I told me!

I don't care if everyone else is doing it. I don't care if it isn't practical to put away violent threats. I don't care how many arguments can be made in favor of God and country. If the premises of your arguments lead to the logical conclusion that violence used in anything but self-defense is justifiable, then you have gone against objective morality.

How is morality objective? This logical argument was culled from the pages of Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics":

1. Reality is objective and consistent.
2. "Logic" is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
3. Those theories that conform to logic are called "valid."
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empircal testing are called "accurate."
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called "true."
6. "Preferences" are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold "truth" to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behavior (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empircal verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behavior is called "morality."
11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

Hard to follow? Let me demonstrate. Let's say that we wish to prove that violence (i.e. coercion/murder) is morally justifiable.

If violence is moral, then acting violently must be the only way to behave morally. The opposite of violence is non-violence. Acting non-violently means you are not actively committing violence, meaning you are not behaving morally, meaning non-violence is either immoral or amoral. The only way to be logically and consistently moral when we say that "violence is moral" is to always be commiting an act of violence. If you're asleep or in a coma, then you are acting immorally. If you're sitting peacefully at home, then you are acting immorally.

Does this make sense? It seems very illogical and difficult to support.

When people condone the functions of a State, they are consenting to the idea that "violence is moral," since the only power a government possesses is its ability to initiate violence with impunity.

If the premise of "violence is moral" is illogical when put to the test, then why are people so ga-ga for guns and governments? Good question. Perhaps they will say that there is no such thing a morality, or that it is all a matter of opinion and gray areas. Oh? If everything is a matter of opinion, why are they trying to convince you that there is truth to what they are saying? Whose opinion takes precedence when it comes to deciding who will be killed and for what purposes? Hmmm...

A nihilist will vehemently shout that there is no truth. If there is no truth, why say it is true that there is no truth? It's illogical!

If violence is a morally neutral action, then why bother regulating it with laws at all?

Suppose we propose that "violence is immoral." To be logically and consistently moral in this case requires only that you refrain from harming others. Everyone can behave morally at all times in this case, including persons asleep and in comas. Engaging someone in a debate by saying that "violence is immoral" does not require you to invoke moral gray areas or to deny the existence of objective morality. Why is that? Perhaps because you have no crimes to hide.

So I venture that violence is immoral. If you'd like a more detailed proof or have any questions, please ask me. Otherwise, test my premises for yourself.

If violence is immoral, government is immoral. QED bitches. Tough titties for all of you social planners out there.

How do I know killing is wrong? I told me!

Hello Rachel

I miss you.

Everything that you imagine shall manifest. The world will be your's...

Public Service Announcement for the Singularity

I am the very model of a Singularitarian

Philosophy and Singularity

You read differently. Are you awake?

"Evolution is a process of creating patterns of increasing order. I believe that it's the evolution of patterns that constitutes the ultimate story of our world." ~ Ray Kurzweil

Immortals walk among us

Zeroes and ones
The curve’s begun
Nanotechnology transcending biology
This is how the race is won
By my hands the sons of man
Understand, execute the plan

Reverse engineering the human mind
Only a matter of time
That this fractal design
Emerges electronic life with
Prophetic symbology and
Modern technology

Bring on the Singularity
Transcend
Transcend biology
Bring on the Singularity
Transcend
Transcend biology

Immerse me in
Virtual reality and
The order of the galaxy
The possibilities expand
Demand more than the
Factory software I don’t care
I want to be smarter
And stronger and live longer

Speed up the accelerating returns
Cause carbon doesn’t work
I want to evolve and operate at terahertz
So bring on the knee of the curve
And let’s transcend biology
Our archaic humanity

Bring on the Singularity

And will I evolve to rise or fall
Becoming non-biological
And will I evolve to rise or fall
Becoming non-biological

~ Dr. Steel, Toy Soldiers Unite

Hope you find these links enjoyable and enlightening.

The Promise of Molecular Engineering

Everything is a pattern of information.

Every piece of matter in existence is a pattern of atoms.

Patterns of atoms can be digitally stored as information.

By applying the awe-inspiring principles of molecular engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics, complex 3D objects can be created from the (microscopic) ground up according to the specifications of digital molecular blueprints.

Exactly how much awe does all of this tend to actually inspire?



CHECK OUT THIS WILD & CRAZY SHIT FOR YOURSELF!

Do you want a cup of coffee? Just click on the molecular blueprint file on your computer and send it to your 3D printer. Adjust the heat to precisely your liking by exciting the electrons to just the right speed.

Do you want new clothes? Go online and download the latest fashions or use design software to make your own blueprints and print away!

Break your glasses? Print some more.

Need a new computer? Print one with the most up-to-date processing power. It'll be out of date by tomorrow, so just recycle it and print a new one.

Need to ship somebody something? Scan it and send the blueprint in an email. They can print up their own. You even get to keep your copy.

Sounds amazing, right? If you can dream it, it is possible.

The implications are so utterly profound! The most basic material needs will no longer exist! Material possessions could be a matter of choice, not chance. Work would no longer be the drudgery of production. Your time could be spent living every moment of your life according to the dictates of your conscience.

The laws of economics would be rewritten and eventually replaced by Economics 2.0. The new economic system will be one that I cannot even begin to imagine, and it will probably be first understood by conscious beings with intelligence far exceeding that of our own. And for the record, I intend to be among those beings. I hope you're listening Google!

If it weren't for the fact that socialism is an ideological veil for violent coercion, I would say that I would welcome this kind of technological socialism with open arms. If we simply look at socialism as the "direct ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources," without implying the need of a government, then I say that socialist utopia is an inevitable by-product of the coming Singularity. Technology has the potential to make all of the lives on this planet rewarding and beautiful by freeing us from the inequalities of birth or social status.

Skeptical? Good! But consider this: even without 3D printing, the Internet is already making this ideal of "technological socialism" a reality. Case in point being universal access to education. Public schools have been failing miserably for decades to make this "sacred cow" of democracy a reality. But in just this week alone, two public school teachers (one who happens to be a good friend, great guy, and self-proclaimed socialist) have said to me that they have learned more from the Internet than they ever did in school. I feel the same way. And I think that you, my dearest reader, would have to agree as well.

But does the ownership of the means of production a socialist society make? No, because socialism still does imply the necessity of a coercive authority. I would argue that the widespread emergence and acceptance of this type of technology is more compatible with an anarchic society. I've only incorporated the socialist ideology into this post to show that, even though we think we fundamentally disagree, socialists and anarchists might actually be working toward some of the same ideals. We are all in this together, and there is such possibility for a bright and shiny future. As I've said before, there are very few evil people in the world, though evil ideas abound. I fight the latter and embrace the former.

Bring on the Singularity!

Where the best moments of my life are arranged in patterns of 0's and 1's...

This is the "jam room" at the house of Loren, Kelly, Justin, & Ally.

When not actually playing an instrument, this is where I spend most of my time. A professional studio would put the mixing console in another room. We take it to a whole new level. Split level.

This is a photograph that an art student would get angsty about.

This is Loren's drumset, rigged with microphones for those spur-of-the-moment recording sessions.

This is our arsenal. The cherry red Gibson SG in the center is my most treasured material possession. Loren stenciled the winged heart onto the pickguard whilst we were playing together in The Fallout Effect, back in my high school days. The mandolin, viola, violin, and cello are also mine.