3 ms·

Honestly I'm not sure being "proud of your beliefs" is a great advice. I'm trying to think of beliefs I'm proud of. Can't recall any in particular. The phrase

by slver 5y ago

Honestly I'm not sure being "proud of your beliefs" is a great advice. I'm trying to think of beliefs I'm proud of. Can't recall any in particular. The phrase communicates lack of flexibility, because if they're "beliefs" they're firmly held, and if you're "proud" you won't have an open mind ready to change those beliefs in face of new evidence. In fact I very often see beliefs and pride be exploited to push propaganda where you get to defend someone else's interests without even realizing it.

syshum 5y ago
I am proud of my belief in Philosophy of Liberty[1], and the principle of self ownership[2]. You are also correct as I am inflexible in this belief, as they are foundational ethical beliefs for which there can be no new evidence for me to change my mind over [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
- cloudfifty 5y ago
  The [1] video is just Propertarianism peddled as Freedom/Liberty. Not sure how you can have self-professed dogmatic attitude to that. I mean it contains a line something like this: "people exchange property voluntarily, otherwise they wouldn't do it". What? That's the level of analysis why people exchange "property"? "voluntary"? Sigh. It's funny how people just invent shallow concepts like this and it always end up doing nothing but protecting - and extending - the privileges of the wealthy. It's just a predetermined outcome looking for a theory to justify it.
  - syshum 5y ago
    No, that is not true at all. Fundamentally I support more of a Geo-Libertarian[1] system, so I support property rights for things you create from your own labor, but natural property that was not created by humans belongs to all. Those that want to make exclusive use of this natural properly owe a "rent" to all. This rent is the only ethical tax[2] one can use to publicly finance a government. Taxes on labor, voluntary transaction, etc are all unethical theft of a persons labor [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism [2] https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geolibertarian-ethics-of-land-rent/ https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geoliberta...
    - slver 5y ago
      Do you realize how easy it is to deconstruct the definitions you rely on? What does it mean "created from your own labor" for example? We apply labor to existing things and we transform them as a continuous process. We don't manifest them in one step out of vacuum. So "create with labor" is a fuzzy concept at best. You don't create anything. At what precise point does this property that "belongs to all" become your property? You draw sharp divide between those two categories, so surely there's a sharp divide in terms of time and action that causes said property to shift those categories. I see a wild tree, I cut it off. Is it mine now? Not yet, so I chop it up, is it mine? No? So I take a chunk and make it into an owl figure. Which precise stroke of my instruments turned this tree from shared property into my own property? Or am I being given imaginary shares of this property as I work on it, so it's 10% mine, then 11% mine, then 15% mine... The rest of these definitions are similarly meaningless if you explore them at depth. It doesn't mean that as a system they're bad. As long as you have objective proof they work in reality (not just in our imagination). But you need to realize in terms of "correctness" they're arbitrary. In fact, there's no such thing as objective ethics. So to declare things are ethical or unethical in a universal way is non-sequitur. A concept is only as useful as how applicable it is for achieving certain goals. If it's just a self-referencing system that feels good, but no one has realized it, or even worse, many have tried and keep failing at it... then you have nothing.
quaunaut 5y ago
I'd disagree on both notions- while my beliefs are firmly held, I also try to question them regularly. The reason they're firmly held is that they've managed to stand up to what scrutiny I've tried them against, repeatedly, for years. On other things, I simply haven't spent a lot of energy thinking about it, and as a result am more than happy to apologize if I'm even slightly in the wrong. Generally, I'm quick to apologize if someone's made a good reason for me to, as I don't regard the need to apologize necessarily with me being a worse person.

by slver 5y ago

syshum 5y ago

I am proud of my belief in Philosophy of Liberty[1], and the principle of self ownership[2]. You are also correct as I am inflexible in this belief, as they are foundational ethical beliefs for which there can be no new evidence for me to change my mind over [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9srplWe_QQ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

cloudfifty 5y ago
The [1] video is just Propertarianism peddled as Freedom/Liberty. Not sure how you can have self-professed dogmatic attitude to that. I mean it contains a line something like this: "people exchange property voluntarily, otherwise they wouldn't do it". What? That's the level of analysis why people exchange "property"? "voluntary"? Sigh. It's funny how people just invent shallow concepts like this and it always end up doing nothing but protecting - and extending - the privileges of the wealthy. It's just a predetermined outcome looking for a theory to justify it.
- syshum 5y ago
  No, that is not true at all. Fundamentally I support more of a Geo-Libertarian[1] system, so I support property rights for things you create from your own labor, but natural property that was not created by humans belongs to all. Those that want to make exclusive use of this natural properly owe a "rent" to all. This rent is the only ethical tax[2] one can use to publicly finance a government. Taxes on labor, voluntary transaction, etc are all unethical theft of a persons labor [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism [2] https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geolibertarian-ethics-of-land-rent/ https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/the-geoliberta...
  - slver 5y ago
    Do you realize how easy it is to deconstruct the definitions you rely on? What does it mean "created from your own labor" for example? We apply labor to existing things and we transform them as a continuous process. We don't manifest them in one step out of vacuum. So "create with labor" is a fuzzy concept at best. You don't create anything. At what precise point does this property that "belongs to all" become your property? You draw sharp divide between those two categories, so surely there's a sharp divide in terms of time and action that causes said property to shift those categories. I see a wild tree, I cut it off. Is it mine now? Not yet, so I chop it up, is it mine? No? So I take a chunk and make it into an owl figure. Which precise stroke of my instruments turned this tree from shared property into my own property? Or am I being given imaginary shares of this property as I work on it, so it's 10% mine, then 11% mine, then 15% mine... The rest of these definitions are similarly meaningless if you explore them at depth. It doesn't mean that as a system they're bad. As long as you have objective proof they work in reality (not just in our imagination). But you need to realize in terms of "correctness" they're arbitrary. In fact, there's no such thing as objective ethics. So to declare things are ethical or unethical in a universal way is non-sequitur. A concept is only as useful as how applicable it is for achieving certain goals. If it's just a self-referencing system that feels good, but no one has realized it, or even worse, many have tried and keep failing at it... then you have nothing.

quaunaut 5y ago

I'd disagree on both notions- while my beliefs are firmly held, I also try to question them regularly. The reason they're firmly held is that they've managed to stand up to what scrutiny I've tried them against, repeatedly, for years. On other things, I simply haven't spent a lot of energy thinking about it, and as a result am more than happy to apologize if I'm even slightly in the wrong. Generally, I'm quick to apologize if someone's made a good reason for me to, as I don't regard the need to apologize necessarily with me being a worse person.