Good is a Balance Between Opposite Evils

"For Aristotle, [...] virtue lay in the mean between two extremes. Good is always a balance between two opposite evils, the midpoint between excess and defect. Temperance is a mean between austerity and indulgence. Courage, a mean between cowardice and foolhardiness. Proper pride a mean between arrogance and abasement, and so forth. Such a mean can only be found in practice."

Richard Tarnas, from The Passion of the Western Mind

Wake Up

I sometimes feel like an observer in traffic, trying to figure out if its all nonsense, and slightly righting the wander, helping to point them in the proper direction. Sometimes, it is those slight interventions into the lives of individuals which helps away the majority population without effort. It is those small ideas which guide the soul, not fiat decrees which abuse the physical form.

Voluntary Association

If my statist, law-enforcement neighbor can raise a teenager in a major metropolitan city-state, I think that he will become a friend to the liberty movement in terms of reluctance to enforce bad laws. In his system, this is a constitutional imperative. I have no reservations assuming this teenager I have watched grow for a few years has experienced marijuana, and that the father is quite aware of the situation, even when he wonders if that familiar smell coming from somewhere close might be from his child or his comrade. Maybe this is the seed we are meant to plant for the future, an investment, driving society forward without violence or coercion, but collectively and above all, voluntarily. That investment will pay returns sufficient in both monetary and morality realms. If ending prohibition is not at least a step in nullification in a collective manner, then why bother, for if we can make this work in a mutually beneficial way, should we not at least try?

deGrasse Tyson on Collapsitarians

I'm all for having a last supper at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, but the skeptic in me also makes me question an unknown future. I need hard evidence, not speculation. Give me something substantiated.

Against Protectionism for Intellectual Property

If anyone was on the fence or in doubt about IP law, this case should help bring some logic an reason back into the discussions:

This week, at the behest of an anti-piracy group, police executed a search warrant against an alleged file-sharer. Not only did the police feel it was measured and appropriate to take action against an individual who downloaded a single album worth a few euros, but even carried on once they knew their target was a 9-year-old child. Of course there has been outcry, but let's look at this from a different angle for a moment. Isn't this some of the best news all year?

The news this week that Finnish police had seen fit to raid the home of a 9-year-old file-sharer has turned into one of the biggest stories of the year so far.

I'm not condoning an act if "theft," but this gross, disproportionate display of ignorance and force is just one more reason I believe the existence of the state is the greatest call for its prohibition. 

Ok, the event was hardly comparable to the military-style raid at the Dotcom mansion, but it was still an example of a disproportionate show of force by the police at the behest of copyright holders.

Of course, while Dotcom's children were undoubtedly affected by the action at their home in January, they weren't the prime targets. In contrast and quite unbelievably, in this week's debacle the unlucky daughter of Finland's Aki Nylund was. But despite being a common-sense disaster, this week's screw-up could be some of the best news we've had all year. And here's why.

If the police targeted the admins of one of the biggest torrent sites in the world this week or rounded up some heavy pre-releasers or similar, people might complain but it would hardly come as a surprise. The writing has been on the wall for a long time in that respect and the backlash from the public would be almost non-existent.

But in what kind of parallel universe does a professional, western police force think it's appropriate, proportionate and a good use of tax-payers' money to send officers to a citizen's home for a petty file-sharing issue, one involving the downloading of a single music album?

And worse still, Finland's police were only called in to deal with the issue when the father of the child refused to pay a cash demand of 600 euros sent by anti-piracy outfit CIAPC on behalf of Warner Music for what amounts to, at most, a civil offense. Rightsholders should be able to protect their interests, but using the police – and the public purse – to enforce an unofficial 'debt'? This just gets better.

When private parties are allowed to wield the force of the state in disputes, WTF?! That pretty much lays the idea of justice six feet under. 

But before we go any further, we should acknowledge the correct assumption by those attempting to protect the police that when the officers arrived at the house they had no idea that they would be targeting a child. Agreed, they had absolutely no clue. What they did have was 'evidence' collected by an anti-piracy group based on a simple IP address.

And the burden of proof is not even expected in a civil case this meager? Wait, Houston, we have a problem. 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of just how useful this 'evidence' is.

If the evidence could actually identify an infringer it would seem likely that CIAPC would've seen the face of a 9-year-old child and thrown their 600 euro claim in the trash. Yes, anti-piracy groups do rely on a certain amount of public fear to make their strategies work, but we've spoken to CIAPC a number of times and they don't seem evil. This is the kind of publicity they can do without.

And they're not on their own.

Chisu, the artist cast into the middle of the scandal, has been forced to defend herself after she faced accusations that she was somehow involved in targeting the child. She wasn't – and this has been confirmed by her label Warner Music – but she herself said that she doesn't need this kind of attention and felt compelled to offer an apology to her young fans.

As public opinion shifts radically away from protectionist efforts for groups that heavily lobby the state for privilege, producers will likely shift away from large organizations such as big recording industry players. Hello self-publishing in all media fields. Goodbye monopolization, naturally, without (and actually despite of) intervention by government. 

Of course, groups like CIAPC and others like them are trying to positively influence the younger generation. With their taste for popular music they are the customers of tomorrow, but scaring them into submission isn't going to work.

More good news: https://torrentfreak.com/raided-pirate-bay-kid-came-to-save-us-all-121125/

Don't Volunteer This Holiday Season

 

Here's the hard truth: soup kitchens don't need you on Thanksgiving. They don't need you on Christmas. They've got those days covered. They need you those other 363 days of the year. They need a dedicated corps of volunteers to spread out that spirit of service through the entire calendar and for a true culture of volunteerism to take hold.

More

Walking Away from Omelas

I was introduced to Le Guin’s fantasy fiction books through friends, but can see how some can be caught off guard, not expecting morality through fiction with the collection of non-fiction articles introduced in this course. It’s an allegory presenting the moral perspective of walking away from “utopia.” The question is whether the happiness of a society can exist at the expense of the freedom and happiness of an individual, innocent child.

Kyes:

"After the narrator has the reader thinking that this city couldn't possibly exist because of all of the "smiles, bells" and "parades," (Le Guin 951) the narrator asks the reader if they believe in the city and in the joy. The narrator suspects the reader will say no, so she decides to describe one more thing that will cause the reader to question the believability of the city. By describing the child who is locked in the dark cellar, the author is telling the reader that this town has its dark secrets too."

I view society from a voluntaryist position, so I see the moral vacuum created by building a utopia on the suffering of an innocent, that the society can not be said to be moral as a result. Rather than continue to be a part of the society, those who see the moral deficiency of the society choose to walk away from it. They choose to withdraw their consent and their support for that society. It’s an evil that can only be allowed to persist if society chooses to ignore it, to force it into the shadows where the atrocity can not be seen.

A society such as that is quite backwards. Can we live in a society at the expense of others? I think that this ties in to the area of positive liberty, where society promotes “equality” through forced redistribution and strong laws by a representative body, rather than through consensual or voluntary interactions and exchanges. This relies on the presence of a state which has the power (and often uses it to the detriment of society) to infringe upon natural, individual rights. If we know that our neighbor is being robbed to provide for services which we want, yet we choose to take advantage of those services anyway, we place ourselves in the position of being both the members of Le Guin’s Omelas as well as the innocent child in the dark cellar.

Ursula Le Guin - The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (PDF download)

I believe that many readers miss the moral of the story by focusing on the effects on the innocent child, which is also an intention of the story. I suspect that many readers are unable to get past this initial shock to start to dissect how Le Guin's story applies to society in general, rather than to this fictional town. The underlying idea is that how can a society be just when it's happiness is provided at the expense of others.

From my perspective, I see the social criticism being focused on the lack of voluntaryism in society. We are forced to provide tribute to the state (Taxation is Theft), with which wars are waged against innocents around the world (Nixon's enabling of the Cambodian Genocide Program during the Vietnam war, for example). How anyone could continue to participate in a society at the expense of others without their consent is beyond me.

Walking away from such an immoral system is the only real choice, for continuing to thrive at the expense of others is no better than being directly responsible for the oppression. Being once removed through a system of government no less lays the responsibility of that government on the heads of it's willing participants, even those who simply contribute their tribute in order to maintain the system itself. This is the social criticism that Le Guin likely intended, hoping the reader would see the parallels between the fictional society and the one we live in today.

It's not about walking away from those in need, but from those who support such oppression. Many of us have been in the position of the innocent child, exploited by the utopian society, rather than one of those benefiting from the exploit itself. In that regard, I believe that many of us are actually on both sides of the exchange; we are both the innocent child and the parasitic society. We benefit from our own exploitation, yet most can not see it for what it is. A society that functions in that manner brings me great sadness. Omelas is not the exploited child, but the society that thrives on the exploitation. Only when we can see the exploitation for what is it do we give ourselves the opportunity to walk away from Omelas.

Omelas is the physical town in the story, but I believe that it refers to a social system. Walking away could also mean simply withdrawing from an immoral social or political system, without moving physically. Looking back in history, think of the fascistic and tyrannical states which rose up and oppressed their populations. As the people themselves rose up in opposition and threw off that oppression, I see that as walking away without moving. If they were able to move to a more free society without actually leaving their homes and families, by simply withdrawing consent to be governed by despots and tyrants, did they any less walk away from Omelas in a metaphoric sense. Staying in Omelas might be a metaphor for consenting to tyranny.

I am a Voluntaryist. I see a possibility for a free society without regulation or laws, where individuals choose to respect the rights of others for the better of society. I'm a bit idealistic, but as they say, "aim for the moon, if you miss, you'll still be amongst the stars." I've focused much of my independent studies on economics, philosophy, and psychology to better understand Human Action. By walking away from one thing, we are walking toward something else, something potentially better.

The metaphor actually reminds me of an example Richard Tarnas' The Passion of the Western Mind, where he introduces Plato's Allegory of the Cave through dialog. Plato's Socrates presents the idea of a prisoner in a cave, chained to a wall, their gaze fixed on an opposite, empty wall. A source of light projects shadows in front of them, which they misinterpret to be actual forms, rather than representations of actual forms. The prisoners can not see the objects creating the shadows themselves. The shadows are the closest thing to the real world that the prisoners see. The philosopher is one who sees the shadows for what they are. He frees his mind by having the ability to differentiate between reality and illusion.

Willfully ignoring the despair of the child on which the utopian society is dependent is rather similar to the prisoner compelled to view only the shadow of reality. When the member of Omelas takes leave from the town in protest to the moral deficiency on which the society is based, they are viewing the reality, not just the shadow of reality. When the viewer awakes, they are presented with the choice of continuing to live at the expense of others, or walk away from Omelas.

Happy War Day

Veteran's Day, the third leg of the statist tripod of holidays; Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, and 9/11. Celebration of these "holidays" is little more than worship at the altar or the American Empire. The Empire Never Ended, yet it's collapse is imminent. 

Formerly Armistice Day, is a holiday observed on November 11 in honour of all those, living and dead, who served with U.S. armed forces in wartime. Armistice Day, the forerunner of Veterans Day, was proclaimed to commemorate the termination of World War I

Proclaimed by whom? surely not the people. Less than one on five support Obama (just the latest American emperor), which should be a stark reminder of the massive withdraw of consent of the population to be governed. I see this as a great step away from the state toward a voluntary society sans government. For what is government but a legitimization of the act of aggression toward others through the act of voting. Don't vote, it only encourages them. 

Self-evident Truths

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That famous quote sounds good, but in real world conversations, I have found few things that are less self-evident than 'self-evident truths' about Rights.

The quote, itself, immediately raises questions. Do we have only God-Given Rights? Are there Human Rights, Moral Rights, Natural Rights, Legal Rights? Would those be different things, or the same things coming from different sources?

And any detailed discussion of Rights typically gets less self-evident from there.

So, let's see if I can offer you a simple view of Rights using the lens of Voluntaryism.

More @ Veresapiens

FEMA, Hurricane Sandy, and the Non-aggression Principle

The sad reality is that to oppose forced redistribution, people like me are seen as opposing helping those in need. 

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has placed a rush order of two million meals to be delivered to Floyd Bennett New York Harbor Parks, and Lakehurst New Jersey.

Efforts to help our community during times of tragedy are to be commended, but is it moral to offer assistance to the needy through the theft from others?

The solicitation was amended less than four hours later for providers to provide a quote of four million meals, preferably of the self-heating variety.

Read More @ Activist Post

Helping our community during natural disasters is, well, a natural response. When we see our neighbors suffering unnecessarily, we step up to help however we can. What we should never tolerate is a mob-like organization which legally-plunders us to offer "charity" through violence. Applying a term of legality to the act of plunder makes that effort no less morally deficient.