Do You Love Pholosophy? (Pho intended ;) )
My name is the Pholosopher and I am a lover of wisdom (and Phở).
I identify with the labels anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, anarchist, and libertarian. I believe that each human being owns themselves and due to this, the initiation of force against other human beings is immoral.
I am passionate about this principle, the non-aggression principle (NAP), because I believe the application of this principle to all human interactions will lead humanity to true happiness, peace, and prosperity.
Freedom may be lost in the years to come if people continue accepting the false idea that government, a group of people with a monopoly on force, is a necessary evil. Government will continue to grow in size, power, and continue to limit individual freedom, if the majority of people don't wake up, demand self-ownership, and refuse to be forced to fund a power structure that is in its nature immoral.
Most people share common ground with me in wanting more liberty but differ when their proposed solutions are more government. My goal is to show as many people as I can the value of the non-aggression principle and that more government is equivalent to less freedom.
I love this world and I want to continue to experience the joy I feel in this life, with the people whom I cherish and value deeply. I want to continue having voluntary interactions with people and forming relationships where both people benefit.
I believe that this life is precious, and to my knowledge, we each only get one. It is time to realize that you own yourself, and that no one else has the right to claim ownership over you.
Cheers, to the spread of liberty and peace,
~The Pholosopher
Philosophy is my core. Reason is my foundation. Pho is my sustenance.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/DaPholosopher
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/DaPholosopher
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dapholosopher/
It's awesome to see other libertarian anarchists getting on Steem!
From my limited success I have 2 tips:
1)In most cases use these tags: anarchy anarchism philosophy libertarian politics. I'm still seeing which are the best. I might be incorrect that these are the ones you really want to use, but this is the best tags I know of so far.
2)Do not let a 0 cent or below $1 post let you down. Be consistent and produce value. The worst thing you can do is stop posting because your post didn't get much money. First off, quitting is a surefire way of not getting money. Second off, sometimes you can have a good post with many votes and little money, but these are still successful posts.
I look forward to seeing more of your content on Steemit.
What do you think about my post on helping the world?
https://steemit.com/steem/@sunshinecrypto/feed-and-shelter-everyone-everywhere-forever#@leprechaun/re-sunshinecrypto-feed-and-shelter-everyone-everywhere-forever-20160805t033443595z
Welcome, dear Pholosopher!
I agree that initiation of force against other human beings is immoral, but for a different reason. Human beings do most certainly not own themselves. They can only borrow themselves for a few decades at most. For all they take, in order to live and grow, eventually they must return. While true that a man living on his own should not be coerced by others, one who is part of a community gives up a part of the ownership of himself willingly - in exchange for shares of everyone else; but now we're in Proudhon territory which reminds me I wanted to write an article on lazyness. Looking forward to your pholosophy!
Hey akareyon, thanks for comment and contribution to the discussion. I do have some counterpoints, however.
1)When we die we don't "return" ourselves to any rights-bearing actor.
2)How does interacting with others give them the right to control our bodies? That makes no sense as the person that uses the body has the better objective claim to it -- direct use. This is always the case unless the person has committed an aggressive act.
I personally recommend reading about Argumentation Ethics which explains the purpose of property rights. It immediately makes clear why the idea of communal "ownership" is antithetical to ownership. https://mises.org/library/argumentation-ethics-and-liberty-concise-guide
I am falling in love with Steemit because of people like you who, although in disagreement, see the value in an argument and uptuck anyway.
You seem to have a solid foundation of philosophical knowledge, so I owe you to explain my perspective.
Take, for example, a mother and her child. Both have, of course, complete ownership over their bodies, and nobody has the right to claim authority over them, or to coerce them to anything.
At the same time, both belong to each other. By giving birth, the mother has sealed a contract with her child, willingly giving up some of her self-ownership. While theoretically free to walk away, she is bound by nature's holy contract to nourish and care for the baby, which in turn means the baby does have a certain right to the mother's body (her teat in particular). Likewise, the baby, although it has the theoretical right to self-ownership, does simply not have the power yet to exercise that right - it cannot simply walk away, and gladly signs over some of its rights in exchange for food, love and pampers. Nobody in his right mind would seriously accuse the baby of "exploiting" or "coercing" her mother or vice versa.
And this scales up. As group-living animals, our interactions weave a web of interdependence across the community. If I live in a village of farmers, and I live by eating the fruits of their field, they have every right to expect me to do my part - or exclude me from their community if I invoke my right to "self-ownership" too often to justify my dolce far niente while they work hard to bring in the harvest. "You go own yourself", they will rightfully say -- and go on owning each other, gladly and voluntarily, to each other's mutual benefit.
You will forgive if I admit that I didn't have the time to study Kinsellas essay as deeply as it surely deserves. What I am getting at: the idea of self-ownership is a good one, in a theoretical, philosophical sense, but in the context of actual, practical communal life, portions of that self-ownership necessarily must be exchanged for a share of everyone else's self-ownership; and as long as this is a contract based on mutuality and free will (necessitating the very theoretical a priori self-ownership I claim does practically not exist), I see no harm or moral objection in it.
Welcome! I agree with everything you said. Especially this:
"I am passionate about this principle, the non-aggression principle (NAP), because I believe the application of this principle to all human interactions will lead humanity to true happiness, peace, and prosperity."
I am with you on Pho, I could live on it for the rest of my life - jetpacks are cool too.
Is good.
So many people (including my own family) think that government is a necessary evil. I have such a hard time explaining to them that it isn't necessary. I feel like it is ingrained in everyone's mind that anarchy means people are going to run around murdering everyone and stealing stuff. It is refreshing to get on steem and see some anarchists talk for a change.
I love the ideal of freedom, NAP, and I wrestle with it continually. Self-ownership is interesting in terms of the makeup of what is meant by self; The micro-organisms are they slaves to this 'self'? I heard a man say, "Your body is not your slave, It is your friend." I like that. Perhapse that's not the self ownership you are talking about, but is it applicable? Someone slips and is leaning over the edge of a falling off place. An initiation of force springs from me before I am aware that I have pulled him back rudely from his own destination. He thanks me. A parent disciplines a child, or does not. Big brother says stop hitting yourself while forcing it's continuation. How can I hope to reproduce without the initiation of force against a leaf. "They started the nuclear exchange," is not satisfactory. I agree freedom should be taught and nurtured, I am trying to keep the belief, and I am struggling with it.
Hi John, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. It sounds like you, and most people, want more freedom yet are figuring out how to best achieve it. Self ownership is simply the recognition that you own yourself and your body, as it is your brain that ultimately controls your body and movements. The NAP is an ethical principle that follows from the understanding that each human owns themselves. Libertarians advocate for the adoption and application of the NAP to all human interactions, with the goal of encouraging peace and reducing violent conflict among humans. Pulling a man back to keep him slipping is trying to defend him from impending potential death and harm - not a violation of his persons or his will. Also the NAP is an ethical principle for humans because it isn't necessary for humans to harm each other for survival. Humans make their food from organic sources, such as plants or animals, to survive which is why the NAP is only applied to humans.
I came here cos I was promised free pho? :) Welcome! On a serious note I have been toying with non-aggression principles as all governments are entirely based on either violence or incarceration as the final solution to any 'legal' framework. What would happen to societal structure if violence in its entirety was no longer possible by governments, where would their authority come from? I think there are too few people in the world with a belief system like this to actually create meaningful change but anti-establishment belief systems will be absolutely essential to the progression of man. It may be our great new evolution cycle, the ending of dependency of the human race on putting global, hugely important decisions in the hands of lessers (or at the very least, equals) who have no right to that level of power and influence - which is why they so frequently resort to violence instead.
haha when did I promise free pho? ;P I think that authority would arise voluntarily based on merit, as it does today. People choose others to be leaders based on experience and skill. It is authority that arises from coercion that needs to be exposed as unethical and unnecessary. I love your thoughts here: "It may be our great new evolution cycle, the ending of dependency of the human race on putting global, hugely important decisions in the hands of lessers (or at the very least, equals) who have no right to that level of power and influence - which is why they so frequently resort to violence instead." I believe that your mind expands when you're free to do as you please, so long as you're not interfering with another person's will. Alternatively, and what we see today, your mind is kept small when you're being subjugated to do things against your will and forced into a fear- and survival-based mentality. You should check out this comic series, called Voluntaryist - https://volcomic.com/universe-terminology/ - it plays with this very idea of humans evolving as more people apply the NAP in their interactions with other humans.
there are rewards as incentive to cooperation
What's your dream car?
At this time, a Tesla. But for transportation in general, I want a jetpack. :D