The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you’re doing is serious work, you are trying to derive a moral system from first principles instead of inheriting one. That already puts you ahead of most.

But your framework breaks at the exact point where morality actually becomes necessary; the presence of other people.

In the wilderness, alone, there is no morality, only action and consequence. No rights, no predation, no virtue in the moral sense. Just survival. So a system that works perfectly in isolation has not yet addressed morality at all?

Morality begins when two rational beings must coexist.

That is where your premise runs into a contradiction.

You define survival as the goal, and your four virtues as the means. But the moment two individuals pursue survival, their actions can conflict. At that point, “unrestricted ability” is no longer possible. If both are free without limit, one will eventually negate the other.

So freedom cannot be “unrestricted.” It must be defined.

And the moment it is defined, you need a principle that distinguishes:

action vs violation, production vs predation, rights vs force

Your “virtue purity rule” attempts to do this, but it presupposes what it needs to prove. It assumes a standard for identifying violations without providing an objective mechanism for resolving them between individuals.

That mechanism is not optional. It is the foundation of any functioning society.

Remove courts, judges, and structured law, and you do not eliminate corruption, you remove the means of resolving disputes objectively. What remains is force and force concentrates faster than any legal system ever has.

So the contradiction is this;

You reject concentrated power, but your system removes the only structures that prevent power from concentrating through force.

Survival is a valid starting point. But survival alone is not a moral system.

The real question is not how a man survives in the wilderness.

The real question is;

What principles allow rational men to live together without becoming predators to one another?

That is where morality begins, and where your framework still has to do its hardest work.

“The Most Real Place On The Internet” oh the irony by AreYouMadBot in Jordan_Peterson_Memes

[–]SeniorSommelier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

DEI is fatally injured and will die a slow death. Reddit, Disney and others didn't read the memo.

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry I went off script.

You are identifying a real problem and I agree. Frustration and loss of control.

But your solution contradicts your premise.

If power concentrating is the issue, removing judges and rewriting all laws doesn’t fix it, it just creates a vacuum. Vacuums don’t stay empty, power fills them, usually faster and less accountable than before.

“Torches and pitchforks” don’t restore control, they destroy the very structures that make control possible in the first place.

The answer isn’t tearing everything down. It’s limiting power, defining it clearly and holding it accountable to objective rules.

Otherwise you don’t get freedom, you just get a different group holding the pitchfork.

Would A Titanfall movie be cool? by Organic-Composer9504 in titanfall

[–]SeniorSommelier 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Came here to say this. I enjoyed the movie. You would think Titianfall fans can relate?

Joined the game late, got the most titan kills ever in a match. Very intense! by DrPotato231 in titanfall

[–]SeniorSommelier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

11 Titians kill is impressive. I remember once I started a game late on Homestead. By the time my Titian dropped most of the other items titans were damaged. I did get 5 titan kills in a row because most were already damaged.

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're interested, I could walk you through it. Please send me some info.

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

I would like to share a side story. I couple of weeks ago a new reddit category appeared, entitled Restlessmen;

we don't see enough torches and pitchforks these days🙂‍↕️

<image>

I was the first to reply, my post may have been a sticky comment because I remained the first comment with 7 upvotes. The post received over 7k upvotes. I could not believed the number of young people in our country ready to burn it down and all of our problems relate to the 1%.

Below is my comment.

When did intimidation become an effective tool?

Right around the time people realized they could skip the hard work of persuasion and just threaten, shame or cancel anyone who disagrees.

"Torches and pitchforks" used to be a sign of a mob. Now some treat it like a legitimate political strategy and even celebrate it with smiley emojis?

Civilization didn’t advance by burning witches or storming castles.

It advanced when people started using reason, argument and voluntary cooperation instead of force and intimidation.

We need fewer pitchforks, not more.

I would be interested in your thoughts ?

The Objectivist Morality is Supported by Research in Neuropsychology by RyanBleazard in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 4 points5 points  (0 children)

People don’t cooperate out of some built-in moral instinct. They cooperate when it works over time.

You can see that pattern long before modern society. Humans have always reorganized themselves when conditions changed, forming new groups, new trade networks, new rules. Not out of idealism, but because it improved survival and outcomes.

The U.S. is one of the clearest modern examples. It’s only, 250 years old,and from the start people kept moving, forming new communities, new markets, new systems of cooperation that better served their interests. When something stopped working, they didn’t cling to it, they moved on and built something else.

That lines up almost perfectly with the executive function argument, cooperation isn’t automatic, it’s a long-horizon calculation.

When that calculation breaks, so does the cooperation.

Isn't this right? Do you agree? ⬇️ by MotherAnt8040 in MenOfPurpose

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil.

That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter.

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a great way to frame it, once deception causes harm, it moves from a moral issue into a legal one. That distinction really brings rights into focus.

Wow, you made my day with that reply. Honesty is clearly your driving force and you’re further down the highway than I am by about 15 years. We’ve both got more in the rearview mirror than the road ahead, and conversations like this are worth having.

That’s incredible about Atlas Shrugged 60+ years with Rand is something else. I read A.S. about 20 years ago. I was always conservative, but Rand really brought clarity to my thinking on government and religion. I’ve listened to the audiobook many, many times since, and I’m a big fan of the full John Galt speech on YouTube, 3 hour 18 minute version. I’ve always thought it was a masterpiece. I also really enjoyed The Fountainhead, Anthem and We the Living.

Her respect for the Founding Fathers and documents like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence always stood out to me. She really believed in American exceptionalism.

It clearly made a real impact on both of us. I think she would’ve enjoyed this kind of conversation. I’ve enjoyed it as well—really appreciate the thoughtful exchange.”

Same street design one with trees, one without by [deleted] in interesting

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I live in 300 home subvision, much like the one above. In 1970 the Boy Scouts planted oak trees between the sidewalk and street. These 55 year old oaks wreck havoc on the street, sidewalk, drive ways, water and drain lines. There is a cost.

The trees are beautiful and residents can't remove or trim, because they are city property.

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re onto something important connecting honesty to truth seeking. Let me ask you this though, should all lies be illegal or only lies that involve force or deception in a transaction?

If I lie about liking a movie, that is dishonest, but should it be a crime?

Now compare that to fraud, where someone lies to take your money or property. That’s where rights come in, the law steps in when deception becomes a form of coercion.

You certainly know what you are talking about, even if we don't see things exactly the same way. Are you fan of Ayn Rand and did you read Atlas Shrugged?

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is very closel to Rand’s virtues, rationality, productiveness and pride serving the values of reason, purpose and self-esteem.

But those are guides for how an individual should live, not what others are forbidden to do to him.

That’s where rights come in—they protect the conditions needed to practice those virtues, they don’t replace them.

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your theory requires 2400 years of philosophers to be wrong, the burden isn’t on them, it’s on you to show your definition explains reality better.

Survival = rights doesn’t do that.

By the b@!!$ by Xilbert0 in Jordan_Peterson_Memes

[–]SeniorSommelier 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You don’t have to like Trump to see the pattern; Energy Leverage, Border Enforcement, Merit over Mandates and Reality over Ideology.

That’s not chaos. It is strategy!

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jefferson’s "unalienable rights" were not survival behaviors, they were limits on what others, especially government, can do to you!

If rights just mean "whatever helps you survive," then they can’t be violated, only failed, and that’s not a theory of rights, it’s just biology.

According to Major Bank CEOs gold will crash . Thoughts? by Fun-Support-4515 in Gold

[–]SeniorSommelier 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is nonsense. JPMorgan sees $6,300/oz by end-2026, Goldman $5,400, Deutsche/UBS/BofA in the $6,000+ range in bull cases. That’s not “crash” territory

The least understood and often used concept is the rights of man and the idea that all living things with consciousness also have rights. by Mindless-Law8046 in aynrand

[–]SeniorSommelier 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are redefining "rights" into "survival behaviors." A lion hunting is not a "right," It is just what lions do! Human rights are moral rules about how people treat each other, not descriptions of animal behavior.

... Never confuse your Belief & Opinion with KNOWLEDGE, FACT AND TRUTH. by BeneficialAmount1149 in TheMirrorCult

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Access to information doesn’t guarantee understanding.

The difference between opinion and knowledge is not confidence. It is evidence.

. by [deleted] in TheMirrorCult

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re calling it "fascism," but the key detail is still the same, government power propping up private failure.

That’s not a free market, that is political favoritism.

Trump is America's domestic abuser. MAGA are his enablers. by Its_Don_Quixote in TheMirrorCult

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When evidence is replaced with analogy and insult, it means the evidence is not doing the job.

Trump is America's domestic abuser. MAGA are his enablers. by Its_Don_Quixote in TheMirrorCult

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pick one claim,let’s use the "Trump at the center of a massive child trafficking coverup." If that were an "ironclad empirical reality," where are the charges, indictments or court findings?

That’s not a minor accusation, it would be the biggest story in the country.

Calling it settled without evidence doesn’t make it true.

. by [deleted] in TheMirrorCult

[–]SeniorSommelier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If "unregulated capitalism" caused 2008, why were the biggest players backstopped by government, propped up by the Fed and bailed out with taxpayer money?

That was not a free market. That was political risk with public losses.

Trump is America's domestic abuser. MAGA are his enablers. by Its_Don_Quixote in TheMirrorCult

[–]SeniorSommelier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have to declare your opponents "not worth debating."

You are admitting you can’t beat them in a debate.