The Violence Of The Gods ...

[Gabri Rigotti]

You can worship the Devil if you want but no harm without consent, harm only with consent …

This is the Harm Consent Rule, the HCR.

In the "Nature of Us", the NoU, we can identify when an instance of interaction between individuals is physical harm with or without consent.

The NoU, the attributes of us as a species, who we are as an outcome of evolution, is already substantially discovered and discoverable.

Each attribute can be statistically sampled into the bell shaped curve that will arise with a mean, a standard deviation and standard error.

These attributes can be ranked in order of priority, for example, among the paramount would be our innate desire for individual freedom even if over time many of us may be brainwashed into relinquishing at least some of it.

By referring the HCR to the NoU we can arrive at precise judgements when an interaction between individuals infringes the HCR.

No matter who your imaginary God is, be it the Devil or a self sacrificing altruist, violence as the use of physical force in contravention of the HCR coupled to the NoU is a criminality and when it reaches into volumes of instances it is, verily, and truly, a crime against Humanity.

No amount of "sacred" scripts will ever "justify" that …

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20967/diplomacy-gets-you-slaughtered

[Trevor Watkins]

An excellent summary of the meaning and intention of the HCR.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN1MoAiHM%3DFzsSLi_hg8GjmTH9qcw%3DrZx93%2BfKuvb6GBsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabri Rigotti]

😊👍👌 ... tx Trevor ...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Lm6tkOm7c8vmhHRbC%3Dq04JSh5%3DfizPKW2TcJoePi%3DS0iw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

" It is not the water in the fields that brings true development, rather, it is water in the eyes, or compassion for fellow beings, that brings about real development. "

—Anna Hazare

[Dewald Katzke]

As a practicing Christian this sentence: contravention of the HCR coupled to the NoU is a criminality and when it reaches into volumes of instances it is, verily, and truly, a crime against Humanity.

Especially "verily, and truly" reads like a Sunday service. I suddenly felt much more at home and comfortable. I was just waiting for the fire and brimstone, much to my surprise it was all smoke and mirrors.

You have essentially replaced a "Thus says the Lord" with "you are committing a crime against humanity" the obvious answer that someone that disagrees with you is: so what? And who cares?

Your statement below smacks of the pulpit, who defines what is a crime against humanity? Who enforces this and who punishes anyone who commits these so called crimes? No one thats who, you are banking on the supposed good nature of humans to fall in line with your definition of harm, consent and crimes against humanity. And probably implicitly hoping that people don't clue into the fact that if they do contravene these nothing will happen to them.

I will grant, that to you I have a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, but to me it appears you want the rabbit and the hat with no magician.

Dewald

[Trevor Watkins]

In red below

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Fri, 27 Sept 2024 at 08:22, Dewald Katzke <dk.om...@gmail.com> wrote:

As a practicing Christian this sentence: contravention of the HCR coupled to the NoU is a criminality and when it reaches into volumes of instances it is, verily, and truly, a crime against Humanity.

While allowing that Gabri's use of language is a bit more "Mediterranean" than your dour central European outlook expects, nevertheless his point is correct. The HCR states "No harm without consent". Any contravention of that implies the use of force. "Volumes of instances" implies widespread use of force. Some people, notably Palestinians and Jews (amongst many others), regard that as "a crime against humanity".

Especially "verily, and truly" reads like a Sunday service. I suddenly felt much more at home and comfortable. I was just waiting for the fire and brimstone, much to my surprise it was all smoke and mirrors.

You have essentially replaced a "Thus says the Lord" with "you are committing a crime against humanity" the obvious answer that someone that disagrees with you is: so what? And who cares?

Your statement below smacks of the pulpit, who defines what is a crime against humanity? Who enforces this and who punishes anyone who commits these so called crimes? No one thats who, you are banking on the supposed good nature of humans to fall in line with your definition of harm, consent and crimes against humanity. And probably implicitly hoping that people don't clue into the fact that if they do contravene these nothing will happen to them.

 

What is the point of the HCR? What is the point of distributing it? Who enforces it? 

The point of the HCR is to distinguish between acts that should be sanctioned, discouraged, frowned upon and acceptable acts. Why did I write it? Because if not me, then who? If not now, then when? I have taken the trouble to distill down all the many, many ethical statements I have encountered over many years to a single sentence "No harm without consent, except in self-defense". 

When I started out as a thinking catholic boy, this statement did not exist. This statement did not exist for the first 30 years of my involvement with libertarians. It has only existed since 2018, and only in its current form in the last 2 years. It is more consistent than the non-aggression principle, than the biblical "Thou shalt not kill", than the "No action without consent" developed in 2012 by the Libertarian Society. I would like to think that it is a useful, brief ethical statement that others might benefit from knowing. It is better and more consistent with the principles of individual freedom than DEI principles, or Marxism, or the Freedom Charter.

What is the point of distributing it? I believe this brief statement can be useful in examining many ethical issues in a consistent way, and developing policies and practices for general use. What are the limits on government, on business, on your next door neighbour? No harm without consent. Must we supply the poor with food and shelter? No, just don't harm them. Is war justified? Only in self-defense. Is sado/masochism acceptable? Only with consent.

Of course there are grey areas which involve competing ideas, abortion being one of the most notable. The very existence of a baby in a womb implies harm to the mother, but is consented to in the vast majority of cases.

Who enforces it? This question betrays a deeply statist mindset. It denies all individual agency in favour of a violent state. The HCR is not enforced. It is adopted by people seeking a consistent world view, and who hope others will share that world view simply because it is more consistent.

I will grant, that to you I have a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, but to me it appears you want the rabbit and the hat with no magician.

Dewald

On Tue, 24 Sep 2024, 12:39 Gabri Rigotti, <rigo...@gmail.com> wrote:

You can worship the Devil if you want but no harm without consent, harm only with consent …

This is the Harm Consent Rule, the HCR.

In the "Nature of Us", the NoU, we can identify when an instance of interaction between individuals is physical harm with or without consent.

The NoU, the attributes of us as a species, who we are as an outcome of evolution, is already substantially discovered and discoverable.

Each attribute can be statistically sampled into the bell shaped curve that will arise with a mean, a standard deviation and standard error.

These attributes can be ranked in order of priority, for example, among the paramount would be our innate desire for individual freedom even if over time many of us may be brainwashed into relinquishing at least some of it.

By referring the HCR to the NoU we can arrive at precise judgements when an interaction between individuals infringes the HCR.

No matter who your imaginary God is, be it the Devil or a self sacrificing altruist, violence as the use of physical force in contravention of the HCR coupled to the NoU is a criminality and when it reaches into volumes of instances it is, verily, and truly, a crime against Humanity.

No amount of "sacred" scripts will ever "justify" that …

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20967/diplomacy-gets-you-slaughtered

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAGXOEN1MoAiHM%3DFzsSLi_hg8GjmTH9qcw%3DrZx93%2BfKuvb6GBsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CA%2BKQP2z4xniPjHE7Yt5s0riMkZvuqfSYfcGROoQJQ1epx1P2ig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

The options open to crafters of new world orders appears to be limited to:

1. Do X or a god will strike you down

2. Do X or government (also a god) will strike you down

3. Do X or the majority / elders / jury / mob will strike you down

4. Do X and we naively expect nobody to not do X

5. Do X... or Y... or whatever, we don't care

6. Do whatever and let's see how natural societal pressures pan out

7. If you do X, you will be hated, prosecuted and villianized... but actually X is what makes the world a better place

8. The world turns all by itself.

Now, I had a specific philosophy in mind while writing each of these and some are very similar, so maybe labelling which philosophy is each would have helped... but there... I have other words to type now.

Stephen.

On Sep 27, 2024, at 02:28, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Ln%3DzyNuNzgX%3DxYiRk6RTcBpSCB%2Ba27qhHU%2BCfXGyzzjxg%40mail.gmail.com.