WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

What is your core philosophy?

Jung

???
Premium
14,037
2,229
487
What is the framework you use to understand the world?

Materialism - The only substance proven to exist is matter. Although certain immaterial phenomena, such as magnetic fields or space curvature exist, they're emergent properties of matter (or material interaction we just can't "see" currently).

Property Dualism - Given materialism, our brains are physical substance. The mind, however, comprises of mental properties which are not strictly reducible to their physical properties. Things like consciousness, reference, qualia are emergent properties.

A mixture of empiricism and rationalism - While I believe that knowledge is predicated on sensory experience ("nothing in the intellect unless first in the senses"), reason is the highest form of evaluation of knowledge we posses.

Deontological ethics - I believe utilitarianism is inherently unethical. The Morality of an act is determined by the act itself, rather than the outcome or virtue of the actor.

Classical Liberalism - I believe in small government, rule of law, individualism, consent, largely unfettered markets, anti-nanny or moral statism, limited anti-federalism, the non-aggression principle and non-coercive exchange, natural rights, social contract theory, positive and negative liberties.


I'm sure there's more but it's 3am and I'm drawing a blank.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,241
4,881
257
How do you successfully navigate the apparent contradiction found in supporting small government and the NAP? Government, regardless of size, violates the NAP by its very existence does it not?

Other than my anarcho-capitalism I agree with just about everything you said.
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,037
2,229
487
I understand some level of coercion to be necessary for the existence of society and rule of law. Even if we shrunk the govt down to only protection of people and property (since most rights stem from property rights anyway), there'd still be some level of inherent coercion. I'd defer to Locke's explanation of the social contract, adopted by Madison and Jefferson, wherein man cedes certain freedoms he possesses in the State of Nature in order to enter into the State of Society, with the state being essentially a trustee. In nature, man is free to do anything his intellect and might allow him to, even murder. He technically possesses natural rights, but must be able to secure them through violence. In society man gives up some freedoms in return for protection of his person and property, in addition to several codified rights.

That said, this is still an area that troubles me. I've just yet to find a better option.


When it comes to econ I'm a fan of behavioral econ, which employs sociology, psych and cognitive sciences, over axiom based approaches.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Sark

Fÿn

Always black
1,394
1,496
202
After reading this I feel like an uneducated ... thing, I understand everything you said but I am unable to create such a list of my own, which prompts me to look for the names of philophies and theories that match what I think.
It'd be far easier to explain how and what I think if I could list it just as you did there in the first post.
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,037
2,229
487
A core philosophy of mine is borrowed from Einstein… "If you cant explain it simply, you dont understand it well enough"
Einstein wasn't exactly a great spokesperson for science to layman.


The issue with this idea is that, as you become more advanced in a topic, multiple layers of complexity begin to stack up. You begin to take for grated conventions the layman doesn't understand, which makes it increasingly difficult to explain it simply. For example, I have no fucking idea how to explain how the internet works to a layman without cheating. An analogy would have to suffice. I simply can't condense almost two decades of understanding of lower protocols and concepts into a short conversation, to even get to the point where I can explain BGP in a meaningful way. I posted a thread about this a while back.
 

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,777
5,435
487
Well since I'm totally armchair.... I don't have all the fancy terms. But I can discuss my framework through a Q&A.

I'd say that I'm centralized in Liberty leaning heavy into Anarchism. I don't think any person or construct of man has any claim on the mind, possessions or any other aspect of man. Live and let live. You do your thing I'll do mine.

I personally don't give a shit what you do... I don't think anything is right or wrong as long as it doesn't infringe upon another human being. I guess I wouldn't mind the social contract as long as I had a chance to sit down and decide if or not I wanted to sign it.

I'm free range fuck the system I guess.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dimduk

rub1out

Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy
9,875
5,199
287
Without all the fancy words:

Treat people as decently as you can.
Try not to let your past failures influence your chance at future success.
Realize your time here is finite. Do what you enjoy as often as you can, before the sand in your hour glass runs out.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,241
4,881
257
I understand some level of coercion to be necessary for the existence of society and rule of law.
I understand some level of coercion to be necessary for the existence of ____________ (fill in the blank). This has always been a myth.
 

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,241
4,881
257
Rule of law kind of requires it.
Says who? If you are talking statutory law then yes...I will agree. This is why I do not support statutory law. Coercion is immoral. Period. If I accept coercion as a 'necessary evil' in order to maintain the civil society then I'm pretty sure I have to accept that this civil society is based on coercion and therefore I must reject it. Coercion is most certainly NOT a requirement for a civil society. Again, this is a myth. In much the same way that those you've cited (Paine and Jefferson) were seen as madmen by loyalists as they rejected the myth of the divine right of kings you can also claim I am a madman for rejecting the small government is necessary myth. Furthermore, if I accept the claim that coercion is necessary for a civil society then I also must accept a Muslims claim that coercion is necessary for a civil union or the communists claim that coercion is necessary for a civil economy. On and on and on. I reject coercion in any form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fÿn

ib4

Error
Staff
1,755
2,669
207
I like many things you said even though I had to take time to understand it fully...so im I'm with Fyn.

These are the things I love reading here at WTF. It's even more fun to learn and think outside the box through the way Fist challenges things. Weird that you could learn so much from a site that has the Long Awaited Booby Thread.
 

Fÿn

Always black
1,394
1,496
202
Rule of law kind of requires it.
Says who? If you are talking statutory law then yes...I will agree. This is why I do not support statutory law. Coercion is immoral. Period. If I accept coercion as a 'necessary evil' in order to maintain the civil society then I'm pretty sure I have to accept that this civil society is based on coercion and therefore I must reject it. Coercion is most certainly NOT a requirement for a civil society. Again, this is a myth. In much the same way that those you've cited (Paine and Jefferson) were seen as madmen by loyalists as they rejected the myth of the divine right of kings you can also claim I am a madman for rejecting the small government is necessary myth. Furthermore, if I accept the claim that coercion is necessary for a civil society then I also must accept a Muslims claim that coercion is necessary for a civil union or the communists claim that coercion is necessary for a civil economy. On and on and on. I reject coercion in any form.
I believe coercion is necessary right now because of human nature.
Unfortunately, it seems that our brains and innate levels of logic are not advanced enough for us to behave peacefully when we grow up.
The society we have now comes from a process of society forging that has been going on for thousands of years. Coercion has always been there in "civilized" societies, it seems abuse of power and violence has always been a part of human behavior and therefore, these contracts happen.
The new types of coercion we experience now are vast in complexity because its all tied up to the technological boom we had in only a century and to the worldwide awareness and constant contact this brought to all as consequence, but if you go back five thousand years you will find Locke's social contract being practiced even in small lost villages, with the downsides being far fewer I assume, but still.

The only society I know was fully anarchist in history (there are probably more) were the pirate settlements in Tortuga Island, until the English fucked that up, at least.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Dead Set and Jung

Jung

???
Premium
14,037
2,229
487
Says who? If you are talking statutory law then yes...I will agree. This is why I do not support statutory law. Coercion is immoral. Period. If I accept coercion as a 'necessary evil' in order to maintain the civil society then I'm pretty sure I have to accept that this civil society is based on coercion and therefore I must reject it. Coercion is most certainly NOT a requirement for a civil society. Again, this is a myth. In much the same way that those you've cited (Paine and Jefferson) were seen as madmen by loyalists as they rejected the myth of the divine right of kings you can also claim I am a madman for rejecting the small government is necessary myth. Furthermore, if I accept the claim that coercion is necessary for a civil society then I also must accept a Muslims claim that coercion is necessary for a civil union or the communists claim that coercion is necessary for a civil economy. On and on and on. I reject coercion in any form.
"Excuse me, citizen, please allow me to arrest you for breaking the law. Oh, you don't want to be arrested? OK, well nevermind, then. We're cool. Just don't do it again,K?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Farceur

MisterFister

There's a very good chance that I don't care.
3,241
4,881
257
"Excuse me, citizen, please allow me to arrest you for breaking the law. Oh, you don't want to be arrested? OK, well nevermind, then. We're cool. Just don't do it again,K?"
"Citizen"? Citizen of what? A government corporation? What government corporation?

Arrest you for what? What law? Did I agree to this law or was it bequeathed unto me by the aforementioned government corporation? On who's property did this "crime" take place?
 

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,777
5,435
487
"Excuse me, citizen, please allow me to arrest you for breaking the law. Oh, you don't want to be arrested? OK, well nevermind, then. We're cool. Just don't do it again,K?"
Yeah, Fist addressed it. From where is the authority to arrest derived?

What offense can a person commit in which self defense and ridicule from the community could not fix it?
 

Jung

???
Premium
14,037
2,229
487
Yeah, Fist addressed it. From where is the authority to arrest derived?

What offense can a person commit in which self defense and ridicule from the community could not fix it?
Pretty sure you can't fix a murder with ridicule. Pretty sure rape isn't OK just because someone is able to overpower another. Pretty sure ridicule won't replace stolen property.

This is the primary issue I have with libertarianism, and why I don't identify as such. It presupposes that a stateless society can exist, when in reality this formulation of society has never actually been realized outside of someone's mind. Although well-meaning, I'm sure, it's basically just naked idealism. It would be fair to apply this to Enlightenment-era philosophy as well. Except that we actually have, well, actual data, from the actual world, to study and base policy on.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Farceur and dimduk

RebelBuddha

Rey de Currumpaw
10,777
5,435
487
Pretty sure you can't fix a murder with ridicule. Pretty sure rape isn't OK just because someone is able to overpower another. Pretty sure ridicule won't replace stolen property.

This is the primary issue I have with libertarianism, and why I don't identify as such. It presupposes that a stateless society can exist, when in reality this formulation of society has never actually been realized outside of someone's mind. Although well-meaning, I'm sure, it's basically just naked idealism. It would be fair to apply this to Enlightenment-era philosophy as well. Except that we actually have, well, actual data, from the actual world, to study and base policy on.
You kind of glazed over self defense.