The Three Justifications for Morality

Morality, defined here as conformity to how one ought to act, has three different foundations throughout history. They are God imposed, State imposed, and self-imposed. All three of these theories are also theories of ownership because it is only through ownership that proper action can be dictated. Ownership is defined here as the ability to execute exclusive control on an object. This includes your body. So, who owns you? Our perceptions about ownership have defined our lives in the past and our legal structures that subsequently evolved. It is through our understanding of this history of ownership that we can seek to liberate ourselves and achieve true freedom and flourishing.

The first ideas of morality come to us from religion. These ideas are God imposed, most notably in the Western European world as the Ten Commandments, and they have been implemented and followed throughout our legal systems to a large extent. My concern here is less with the history of the legal systems and more with the ideology that governs our recognition of authority when it comes to dictating morally correct action. In the God imposed theory of morality, we are all owned by God. Jesus is our shepherd and we are but lambs, and language of the like. The very mentality of the religious believer is that the individual is incapable of knowing right from wrong; only God can know such things. So, in order to be virtuous, I must do what I am told by God. God controls my fate, and it is only by his grace that I shall make it into heaven, lest I be cast into hell. God has the power to dictate how you ought to live, and this can only be established through the recognition and acceptance of God’s ownership over your body.

Of course, it may also be argued that God has given us freewill, and we have the capacity to choose our actions. This may be technically true, but God still dictates which choices are correct and incorrect. We lack judgement over our own actions, a fundamental necessity of ownership. In the religious view, we are no different from a cow owned by a farmer. We may choose when to eat grass and where, but our choices are limited by the fence around the field. Yes, the fence may offer us protection from predators, but it also prevents us from eating whatever grass we may desire, and it has also deprived us of the choice to erect our own fence should we choose to have one. We are not autonomous creatures that own ourselves.

The second idea of morality comes from government. Sometimes called rights, the government dictates to us what actions we can take, and which ones we cannot. The punishment and reward systems are not as prolific as those in religion, namely freedom from jail is heaven and jail is hell, however, they do still exist. Instead of listing commandments, the government grants rights. Governments take a more positivistic approach; they tell you what you are allowed to do, and if it isn’t listed, you cannot do it. In some legal traditions, most notably common law, it was understood that if the law didn’t explicitly forbid it, you were allowed to do it. This interpretation has since given way to the more explicitly positivistic approach in which the government allows you certain freedoms through rights. An example of this is with the U.S. constitution. When the first amendment was written, James Madison marveled at its relevance. He argued that the right was superfluous because nowhere in the constitution did the government have the capacity to regulate speech. This interpretation has since been turned on its head and every free speech battle has been about what the first amendment allows the citizens to do and not what power is given to the government by the constitution.

Governments steal from their citizens through taxation and asset forfeiture, they limit services we can provide or receive, they decide who can provide what services and how through licensing, they mandate how we can receive medical care, they dictate what constitutes money, and they regulate what we are allowed to put into our bodies. Again, it could be argued that we have the freedom to decide these things because we have the freedom to vote, but this is even less reassuring than freewill. At least with freewill we can make choices on a daily basis. With voting, we get a choice maybe once every two, four, or six years. And even then, politicians rarely keep their campaign promises. We are owned by a schizophrenic, sociopathic master, with no regard for our wellbeing, and every incentive to sell us out as chattel to the highest bidder. We are not just cows in a fenced in field anymore; we are in the back of a semi-truck on our way to the slaughterhouse and all we get to decide is who is driving the truck.

Finally, we come to our final theory of ownership, and thus basis for morality; self-ownership. I am the only being capable of moving my fingers to type this article. I am the only being capable of blinking my eyes, turning my head, or walking a mile on my legs. You can put a gun to my head and force me to do these things, but you cannot control my body as I can. No being on the planet is capable of exclusively controlling the body of another living creature. I cannot will a rabbit to eat grass, a gazelle to run from a lion, or a person to read this article. I can use force or the threat of force to compel action. I can use compelling speech or coercive deception to compel action. However, I have no capacity to will action from another being. This is because self-ownership is self-evident, it is a priori, and it is a condition of reality. Once we recognize this, no other basis for morality is possible save our own self-imposed one.

I am not arguing for moral relativism, i.e. the idea that every individual has their own morality and thus can to whatever they feel is right at the given moment. No, I am arguing for a morality that acts in accordance with our observed reality, the one that demonstrates that every living being owns his, her, or its body, and to try to compel action from another necessarily requires force or coercion, which violates the self-ownership of the being actively being compelled into action. You are the only person that can decide to use your eyes and your brain to read and interpret this article. If I put a gun to your head and force you to do it, I am violating your ownership over yourself. Your exclusive control over your body is being violated by my threat of complete destruction lest you choose to comply with my dictates. My actions would be immoral because they do not comport with reality. Indeed, they violate the evidence of reality.

Self-imposed morality, or a morality based upon self-ownership, dictates that in order to be moral, we must act in accordance with reality. Reality very evidently shows that you own your body and I own mine. For anyone to attempt to violate that ownership, they must aggress against us, and thus their actions are immoral. This is where the concept of the non-aggression principle is derived. It states that the initiation of the use of force is morally wrong. This is a valid moral principle because the initiation of the use of force always results in a violation of someone’s self-ownership.

Self-imposed morality also gives us the freedom to decide for ourselves how we ought to act. We are limited only by the immorality of aggressing against other living beings. We are free to decide what relationships we value, what labors to pursue, what virtues to embody, and how happiness is best experienced. Religion is unnecessary, however, you are free to follow one as long as you or your congregation are not violating the non-aggression principle. Governments are also not necessary, however, should you and your neighbors choose to form a voluntary coalition with common goals, you are free to do so as long as you do not aggress against anyone. You are free to make or earn your bread as you so choose. You are even free to characterize this state of existence as anarchy, and I encourage you to do just that.

You Are the Variable

What is the purpose of a life well lived? What is the purpose of life? What is the purpose of anything? Purpose denotes meaning, that there is a reason something happens. There is no preexisting reason you are alive. You exist. That is all. What you do with your existence is up to you. No one can give you anything you aren’t willing to take, no one can take from you anything you aren’t willing to give, and no one can show you things you aren’t willing to see. Reality is a constant, you are the variable, and you have the power to choose. You create your reality. Looking at a tree does not change the tree. I will remain the same whether you see it or not, but you will be different after you have seen the tree. What you do with that experience is up to you, because you are the variable. You change, and while you have the power to change the world around you, the greater change is always within yourself.

Let’s say you remodel your kitchen. What was it like before? It had some cabinets, a refrigerator, an oven, a stove top, counter tops, a sink, and maybe a dishwasher. What is it like now? It has some cabinets, a refrigerator, an oven, a stove top, counter tops, a sink, and maybe a dishwasher. It really hasn’t changed, at least not from what our concept of a kitchen is. Now, let us ask, how have you changed?

You went from being dissatisfied and possibly even distraught over the sight of your old kitchen to being positively elated! You love your new granite counter tops, your stainless steel fridge, and your center of the island stove top. You are so happy to be in your kitchen, and you love cooking in it. The chores that were a complete bore are now an absolute joy! Yet, your kitchen isn’t functionally any different than it was before. You could cook, do dishes, and feed your family just as well then as you could now. So what has changed?

You have changed. You took a reality you did not have control over, the original design of the kitchen, and you took control over it. You asserted your existence upon the kitchen. You have done this with other aspects of your life, but perhaps you weren’t aware of it. Every time you choose to change something in reality that exists so that makes you happier, you are asserting your existence. It is easier to do with inanimate objects, but it can be done with people too.

When you are in a relationship, whether with a friend or a lover, you assert your existence by stating your preferences and clarifying your boundaries. No matter how crazy of a story your buddy has, you don’t want him calling you at two in the morning to tell you about it. No matter how good the sex is, you will not tolerate an abusive lover. You do not have direct control over them in the way you do the kitchen, but you can control whether or not they are in your life.

Anarchy is the recognition that everything in the world is chaos, and we choose to forge from that chaos order. There is no meaning to life unless we choose to give it. Anarchy is the recognition of the fact that there is no reason why you are reading these words, unless you choose to give your action of reading meaning. What’s more, anarchy is recognizing that by reading these words, they will not change, but you will. You are the variable. Everything else in life is a constant.

 

The Two People in Your Life

There are two versions of you that exist. There is the person you are right now, and there is the person you will eventually become; current you, and future you. At the end of reading this article you will be future you from the perspective of current you, and you will be a different person. Time and experience make the future version of ourselves different from who we are right now in this moment. Even if we do nothing but stare blankly at a wall for four hours, the person we are at the end of that four hours has changed, even if seemingly imperceptibly. You will at the least be four hours older, and perhaps at the most, someone who has achieved a profound understanding of themselves. You could have been meditating about your life during that staring, only you know for certain. The point is, we are always changing, and the only control we have is over the direction of that change is the choices we make.

You can do nothing to change who you are right now, but the choices current you makes will determine who future you is. That sounds clunky, so let me rephrase. There are two people in your life, the person you are, and the person you will eventually become. You have the power to determine who you will eventually become, and you can ensure that version of yourself becomes who you want to be by the choices you make in the present. It can be empowering and scary to realize the kind of power you have over the direction of your life and the future you will have. You have the capacity to become what you have always wanted to be, to be the kind of person that will make you happy. Eventually, current you will be future you, and when that day comes, will you be happy?

We must side track for a moment to define happiness. Happiness is a state of being. It is a kind of joyous satisfaction with your life that comes as a result of living the virtues that make you a good person. It is not the immediate satisfaction of your most base desires in the moment that defines hedonism. Happiness does not come from consuming the bowl of ice cream; it comes from knowing that you have the power to choose if you want to eat the ice cream, and if you do, it will not ruin your health. Happiness is self-empowerment and self-control. Happiness is not spending time with people in your life; happiness is knowing the people you spend time with in your life are there because they practice the same virtues as you. Happiness is knowing that you will become the person you want to be because you are already making choices that make you more like that version of yourself every day. But, how do we achieve happiness?

The first thing we must realize is that happiness is not an achievement, and it is not a destination. It is a state of being, which means it can only be experienced. So, how do we experience happiness? We must make choices every day that make us virtuous and good people. I say virtuous and good because I believe virtue is living in accordance with your values. If you value honesty and want to be virtuous, you must be honest and truthful with yourself and the people in your life. You could value hurting other people, and thus would be virtuous by hurting other people. But that wouldn’t make you a good person. In order to be good, you must virtuous in living the values that make one a good person. Those values may be self-evident to most people, but this is short list of some of them: honesty, integrity, trust, compassion, empathy, sympathy, kindness, generosity, courage, and magnanimity. That is by no means an exhaustive list, and to provide a complete list may take a lifetime of work. Another reality is that being virtuous and good also takes a lifetime of work.

The truth is, none of us will ever be perfectly truthful, perfectly honest, perfectly empathetic, and that is OK. We are human. It is more important that we try and are dedicated in our effort to achieve virtue than it is to actually achieve the ideal. Being virtuous is a skill, and like any other skill, it must be practiced if we are ever going to be good at it. You do not have to be excessively rigorous, but it is important to have a working understanding of your virtues. Otherwise, you will not know what choices to make. If you want to be an honest person, this means you must always tell the truth, no matter how embarrassing. Sharing embarrassing truths can be hard, but there are two ways to make it easier. One, you start with easy, little truths. Perhaps you tell your friend you secretly have a crush on the awkward person that used to work in the mail room, or despite how obnoxious your boss is, you respect and appreciate them for what they are trying to accomplish in the workplace. Two, you have people in your life with which you can share your truths openly and honestly without fear of judgement or reproach because they accept and appreciate you for the person you try every day to become.

This is another truth; achieving virtue is a life-long pursuit, and you must make choices every day that direct you towards being virtuous. You must practice every day, every time you have to make a choice. No matter how small the choice is today, it will impact future you. You may think, “Ah, it’s just one cookie, what could it hurt?” but it is not just one cookie. It is a value judgement about whether or not immediate gratification is more important than long-term success. If you are trying to lose weight, saying no to the cookie today will make it easier to say no to the cookie tomorrow, and after saying no to the cookie a few days in a row, you will feel so empowered that no cookie will hold sway over you ever again. Understanding the kind of power future you has the potential to wield must be an ever present idea in your mind because it will have a profound impact on the power current you is able to exercise.

Future you will eventually be current you, and if you want future you to be happy, successful, and the culmination of your life’s biggest dreams, then it requires consistent, diligent work from current you. It is not about some singular herculean effort, rather it is about a lot of little efforts every single day. One snowflake is not capable of covering the mountain, but when enough of them accumulate over time, and their fall is consistent enough, you can build a ski resort and make a lot of money. The snowflakes are your choices, and the ski resort is your happiness. Isn’t it time you started accumulating?

The Irony of Collective Individualism

Individualism triumphs the idea that humans should be evaluated on individual merits, not on the merits of the group to which they may belong. For example, a black man should be evaluated on his individual capacity to perform a job, not on the actions of the black people that destroyed Charlotte recently. This is a perfectly reasonable and good position to have. It is illogical to assume that every member of any group thinks the same way and has the exact same capacities, especially when that group affiliation is not freely chosen. The irony is that this line of thinking, that individualism is the ideal, requires a large collective of people, a vast majority, to value it in order for individualism to matter.

This can be plainly seen by the hatred toward white people and cops coming from the rioters in Charlotte and any other place Black Lives Matters shows up. The hatred, also known as racism, directed at whites by the black rioters is collectivism pure and simple, and no matter how much the white guy getting curb stomped in the parking garage values individualism, every black person there is beating his ass because he is white. The guy getting his skull crushed didn’t choose to be white, yet the color of his skin is the only thing the collectivist, racist, blacks care about in that moment.

The case for the cops is similar, but you still have the choice to be a police officer. There was only one police officer that pulled the trigger that killed Scott, yet all cops are being blamed, attacked, and hated for it. The vast majority of cops are good people, including the one that pulled the trigger in the incident as it was justified. Despite this, because there are a few bad apples, all cops are being demonized. This is also collectivism, and as a society that values individualism, we should not tolerate it. We have systems in place to evaluate when an individual acts inappropriately; we must have the courage to stand up for what is right and get rid of the bad apples.

When we evaluate every Muslim or refugee by the same standards of collectivism, believing they are all bad because they are Muslim or because they come from the Middle East, we are not living by our standards of individualism. Should we ban all Muslims from entering the country because some of the ones that come in may murder some people? Until we can find an adequate way to evaluate them as individuals, yes. Letting them all in because a majority of them are good is just as much collectivism as is not letting any of them in because a minority of them are bad. The difference is, you can only guarantee the safety of the domestic population by excluding everyone until you have an adequate screening process. Islam as a political ideal is a subject for another time, but it is a collectivist system worse than communism.

Given all of the different factions in our world attempting to establish dominance for their specific group, how are we as individualists expected to maintain our culture of individualism? This is where the irony comes in; we must form a collective movement. A collective movement of individualists is the only way we can advocate for our values and virtues. We must collectively work together to make sure each individual is evaluated as an individual, not as part of a group. This is not to be mistaken for the reality that a person’s voluntary affiliation with a group does speak to their character, however, it is not the only component, nor is it a disqualifying characteristic. We should not prevent a terrorist from entering our country because he is a Muslim; we should ban him because he wants to initiate force against the citizens of this country.

The idea of collective identity or collective organization can be a foreign one, especially to me as someone who takes great pride in my individualism. However, I know that if I want to continue to live in a world that values individuals, I must find likeminded individuals, and we must work together as a collective to ensure our ideals are achieved. Those of us that value individualism must work together not just for our own survival, but for the survival of our culture and because it is the right thing to do. I hope, like me, you are apprehensive about the idea, but I hope like me, you are willing to give it a shot. This fight is far too important.

Is Social Media Engineered Distraction?

Humans are social beings by nature and by evolution. As an individual, humans are not particularly well suited to survive. We don’t have sharp claws, massive amounts of strength, and we aren’t particularly fast. What we have is a cognitive frontal lobe that allows us to problem solve and create abstractions to better understand our environment. This alone, though, does not give us any advantage over a predator unless we can plan in advance a way to defeat the predator. What do we have then?

Humans are excellent at cooperating with each other. Together we can build traps and walls to keep out predators, cultivate land for a consistent food supply, and build houses and structures to protect us from nature. Effectively, we built civilization out of cooperating with each other. This cooperation requires us to be informed about the other members of our community as well as our own standing within that community. We have to know who is reliable and who is going to not shirk their responsibilities. We must also know how others perceive us; are we liked, do others find us dependable and trustworthy or are they going to kick us out of the group? Out of the necessity to be informed about the other members of the group and our standing within it, we have developed a hypersensitivity to social life.

In today’s world, we have the internet and social media; effectively social life on steroids. Not only can we keep up on the lives of everyone we went to high school with but on the lives of celebrities, politicians, and complete strangers. We are socially so well connected that our capacity to process and function in life is inundated at times. How much of your life have you wasted scrolling through your Facebook or Twitter feed? While it can provide necessary distraction from time to time, largely it distracts us from more productive activities. We could be improving our relationships with our friends, family, or significant other; we could be improving our knowledge base; we could be discovering virtue within our own lives and impacting the world. Instead, we are all consumed with what Suzie did on her last vacation, or if Terry from high school is doing as well as we are in social standing. The negative impacts of this on our life are evident, but I want to know if this detriment is intentional.

What if Facebook was designed to distract us from a failing economy, worsening race relations, international conflict, a European migrant crisis, potential currency collapse, chronic unemployment, and an international cabal of governments and corporations intent on constructing a supranational governmental body that supersedes national sovereignty and therefore individual sovereignty? I don’t think the original intent of any social media platform was to do just this. I think they were designed as a way to improve communication and provide a form of entertainment for internet users. I do, however, believe that the various platforms have been coopted for just the purpose of distraction and obfuscation of the truth.

When you see Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube actively policing posts or content providers for reasons that are clearly intended to silence their voices, and Google limits search results, the question of motives comes into play. When you have the owners of Facebook, Microsoft, Google, and Apple all encouraging and supporting the United Nations, a supranational governmental body not beholden to any sovereign people, taking over the internet, you must ask why. Are these people technocrats that honestly believe they can use technology to reshape the thinking of humans? Do they believe they can control you if they limit the information to which you are exposed?

Yes they do. These people are no different from any other authoritarian in the past that has believed humans are flawed and must be reshaped into something better. Socialists, Communists, and Marxists all believed this. Proponents of the public education system believe this as indoctrination is the sole purpose of public education. If the government can control the information you are taught for twelve years, they can control how you approach any topic or idea for the rest of your life. Unfortunately for them, the human spirit desires to be free. Fortunately for humanity, those of us that desire freedom above all else are endeavoring to use every means necessary to fight back.

Social media is useful at distracting and controlling the sheeple, but it is also incredibly useful in waking them up. The phenomena of “Red Pilling” is something that was made famous in the movie The Matrix, and it has been overwhelmingly adopted across the internet thanks to freedom fighters and their use of social media platforms. People are waking up every day thanks to the internet and the moral virtue of individual freedom. Freedom is good and it is the best virtue to fight for. That is why it will win. The entirety of the world’s armies cannot adequately oppose men with morality on their side. Moral conviction is the strongest motivator within human action, so I ask you to take up the cause of freedom with me. Let us stand together as we wage the war for freedom all across the internet. No longer shall we let Suzie’s vacation pictures or Terry’s new car distract us. Let us be the content providers for how the future should be. Let us fill everyone else’s feeds the ideas of freedom, liberty, and anarchy. Let us espouse moral virtue as our guiding light so that others may find it and join us on this journey.  Together, we will achieve anarchy, we will achieve freedom!

Why We Want to Universalize Principles

Often at work I get flack for how hard I work and how dedicated I am to performing tasks to the best of my ability. I work in food service, so what I do is not changing the world, however, I still take the work seriously and I apply myself. There are two reasons for this. One, I believe everything we do is training for everything else we do in life, so if I do not apply myself for eight hours a day five days a week, I will be conditioned to not applying myself and I will do that in other parts of my life. The second reason is that I believe in universalizing principles. The principle in question here is applying yourself to the best of your ability at work is a good thing. If this is to be a principle, it must be universalized and applied to all people, which includes me. If I want other people to work hard, I must work hard myself.

Have you ever seen a coworker intentionally be lazy or disregard a task they should complete with the direct intention of leaving it for someone else? Have you then heard that same coworker bemoan the fact that no one else in the place works very hard? I see it every day, and I wonder, “How can you expect other people to meet standards you yourself are not willing to?” Of course, I complain when other people do not apply themselves, but I am justified in doing so.

I am justified in my complaints about the poor work ethic of my coworkers because I have a strong work ethic. I apply myself to the best of my abilities, so when other people do not do the same, they are not meeting the principle of applying yourself to the best of your ability at work is a good thing. If my coworkers believed in the principle, applying yourself to the best of your ability at work is a bad thing, then they are not justified in their complaints about other people not working very hard. As we would expect by now, universalization of principles has much greater implications.

Universalizing principles is fundamental for living in a civilized society. We know that theft is morally wrong. That is the one of our basic moral principles, and it is something that even the thief agrees is a valid principle. If theft was a good thing, the thief would have no incentive to steal because what he stole would be stolen from him immediately. However, if private property is recognized, then the thief is secure in knowing that no one else is going to steal what he wants to take from others, and no one will steal from him after he has stolen. Universalizing the non-aggression principle, the initiation of force is morally wrong, allows us to interact peacefully with others within our society as well as hold others to account when it is violated.

If murder was morally wrong only for those who believed it was wrong, all someone would have to do to get away with murder was to not believe it was wrong. Certainly, this belief would leave the murderer open to be murdered without any repercussions, so it would make sense that universalizing the principle that murder is a good thing would be something this person would disagree with. We find this across all violators of moral principles; the violators want the laws to apply to everyone but themselves so they can take advantage of all of those that hold themselves to the standards. Necessarily, this problem necessitates a legal system that adjudicates disputes, prosecutes offenders, and establishes some modicum of justice. What constitutes such a system and whether or not what we have is a moral system is outside the scope of this article.

Even criminals know that they are breaking the principle of universalization for moral standards. This is evidence not only of universalization itself, but it is evidence of the fact that agreeing upon moral standards is something we have already done. The necessity for a complex legislative system is an unnecessary one. Everyone knows that you should not hurt people or take their stuff and you should keep your word. So all we really need is a service provider that will defend us from those that want to hurt us or take our stuff, and another one that arbitrates the disputes that arise from someone trying to hurt us, take our stuff, or break their word. These are systems that can be voluntarily chosen in the free market.

Your car insurance has universal standards that must be met, and there are dozens of providers that will meet those standards in various different packages for various different prices. And, if you get into a collision with someone that has a different car insurance provider, your insurer is still able to resolve the dispute very peacefully. There is no need to worry that your arbitration company will not get along with another company. The principles that they apply to every one of their customers also apply to them.

The universalization of principles places the principles as the ideal standard above the influence of man or his legislative laws. Similar to the way religion places God above man, objective moral standards are above the influence of man, which allows for their universalization. Objective moral principles are as justifiable through reason as gravity is through observation, which clearly applies universally to everyone. Principles, like gravity, hold the world together, and like gravity, they establish a universal framework that facilitates human flourishing.

What I Would Like to Know

We know that religions evolved all across the world in different cultures as a way to describe the things that could not be easily understood and as a way to codify morality among the people. We know that the races are biologically different. We also know that religions evolved to some extent along racial lines. We know that IQ has a biological component, although we do not fully understand what it is. What I want to know is to what degree genetics influences our cultures and our religions. Is religion an outward projection of our values based upon evolutionary pressures, is it an internal understanding of who we are as a race of people, is it some combination, or is it something else entirely?

We know that cultures are defined entirely by the people that inhabit them. Europe and the United States are very different from China and Japan, and different still from sub-Saharan Africa and South America. Christianity is different from Buddhism, which is different from Hinduism, which is different still from Islam. Christianity permeated Europe and subsequently the world from the proliferation of Western civilization across the globe, but when you look at pre-Christian religions in Europe, you find a different representation of the White man. Without getting into those specifics too much, I want to know to what degree are the Gods of these religions representations of the ideals of the specific races that created them. I also want to know to what degree the values of each of these religions reflect the innate or biological characteristics of the races that value them.

A recurring theme in all religions seems to be an idea of transcendence. Some religions describe it as the soul, and others describe it as a state of nothingness. While there are many different descriptions of this idea, its consistency across the races is indicative of our underlying unifying traits as humans. I want to know if there are biological underpinnings of this idea as they are so prevalent across the different races.

The last thing I want to know is the impact of IQ on religion and culture. We know there is a biological component to IQ, and given that the races have very distinct cultures and race is an effect of biology, to what extent does intellectual capacity impact the complexity, adherence to, and enforcement of religion. Take for instance that in Christian nations in the West there is large tolerance for other religions and even atheism, while in Muslim countries in the Middle East non-believers are put to death. How does intellectual capacity affect this, as well as if there is a biological component is something I find profoundly intriguing. We know the average IQ in the West is 100, while it is 85 in the Middle East. This clearly indicates that the intellectual capacity of citizens in the West on average is greater than it is in among the citizens of the Middle East. Is this entirely biological, cultural, religious, a combination, or something else entirely?

These are challenging and controversial questions, and I feel comfortable asking them because of the degree of freedom I have where I live. I know that if I am ever going to find the answers to these questions, I will have the easiest time in a society in which challenging ideas are not shunned or people that have them are not black listed. That is a society in which individual freedom and pursuit of the truth are the greatest ideals. That society is a state of anarchy. It is my hope in answering these questions I can understand what will be the most likely vehicles for bringing about a state of anarchy. Perhaps it is that anarchists are simply a different subspecies of people. It feels like it at times. Regardless, it is my hope that all of humanity can unite behind the ideal of human flourishing!

Better Lucky Than Good?

I first heard the expression, “better lucky than good” while golfing with my dad. I was so bad, and still am, that when I would hit a remarkably good shot, one of us would remark, “Better lucky than good!” For a long time I thought this was a good saying until someone else explained to me that luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. That changed my outlook entirely. People that are successful are not lucky; they are well prepared and they sought out opportunities to succeed. If luck did exist, it would indicate that there are supernatural forces at work influencing our lives. In truth, anyone that is lucky has simply taken advantage of an opportunity that was presented to them.

Have you ever seen a guy with a beautiful woman on his arm? Did you remark to yourself about how lucky he was for being able to keep such company? What about someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs; do you think they were lucky? I would argue that none of these people are lucky. No one is lucky. All people that are successful in whatever regard, are so because they prepared and seized an opportunity when it arose. They were also not simply sitting idly by waiting for an opportunity; they were actively out searching for opportunities. How many girls do you think the aforementioned guy dated before found the beauty on his arm? Do you think he didn’t spend any time accumulating resources to intrigue such a woman? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn’t stumble into their success. They worked every day on it, and little by little they achieved greatness.

Successful people work harder, train longer, dream bigger, seek more opportunities, and sleep better because they know that as long as they keep working, their preparation will find the right opportunity. This is why I write every day. Writing helps me coalesce my thoughts, plus it is training for improved communication. As someone that loves communicating and teaching complex and challenging ideas, it is important that I am skilled at communicating in any medium available. I am confident that my writing will improve as I continue to prepare myself for the opportunity that I know is approaching. If more people shared this outlook, instead of believing that life is just going to happen, we would have a happier and more successful population. You are responsible for your life, your preparation, and how you respond to the opportunities you face. I hope you are prepared for the greatest opportunity of your life because it is not going to wait for you to be ready.

The Precarious Proposition of Procedures

Procedures, we deal with them on a daily basis. Anything from a four-way stop to ordering food at a restaurant to opening or closing a business for the day, procedures are designed to help individuals streamline their actions. When you know how someone else is going to act, it makes your decision making process easier and more streamlined. This is the purpose of having a procedure. It allows for you to anticipate the actions of other people without knowing them personally as well as transfer information without having to do it directly. Procedures can also stifle creativity and innovation. As with all things, there are pros and cons, so let’s have a look at the pros and cons of procedures.

First up, we will talk about the benefits of having a procedure or a standard operating procedure. I use traffic examples often as I will assume most people have driven a car in America, plus I have spent a great deal of time driving. If you approach a four way stop at the same time as three other cars all coming from the other three directions, how do you know who goes first? Procedure would indicate that the first person to arrive crosses the intersection first. If you all arrive at the exact same time, you then proceed in a clockwise direction around the intersection until all vehicles have cleared. This allows you the opportunity to get through the intersection quickly without any confusion. Likewise, traffic lights provide a valuable procedure; stop on red, go on green, and caution on yellow as vehicles in the intersection clear. If people thought the proper procedure was to go on red, while others only went on yellow, everyone that went on green would be in a world of hurt. Procedures clearly enhance our driving practice.

Likewise, if you work in a business that has multiple shifts, you undoubtedly have a procedure for the beginning and end of your shift so you are able to take over from the previous person easily and leave the station primed for the next person. The same is true for accounting and book keeping practices. Ledgers are kept consistent within the business and they meet a uniform standard so others outside of the business can understand the accounting process of the business in order to evaluate the assets of the company. If we really think about it, procedures surround us in every facet of our lives. Most are good, but what happens when procedures are bad?

The ill effects of bad procedures are pretty straight forward; anything from a loss of efficiency to a disservice of justice can result. Perpetuation of poor government programs, such as welfare that creates a permanent under-class, or excise taxes on cigarettes and booze that hurt most the poor, are a direct result of poor procedures. Taxation in all of its forms are procedures, and the entire United States Code is a system of procedures and how to implement them. By delegating powers to government agencies, Congress institutionalizes the procedures that make the laws that affect all of our lives without any legislative oversight whatsoever. As bad as these are, the worst part about procedures is not their direct effect on us.

It is the indirect impact of discouraging critical thinking that makes procedures so incipient in their degradation of our society. When you no longer have to think about whether or not what you are doing is right, you stop doing it. You rely on the procedure to tell you what to do, and you rely on the judgement of the procedure creator to determine if the procedure is in fact just. This separation of judgement from action that results from following procedures degrades our personal capacity to evaluate our own actions and the actions of others. You cannot hold the cashier responsible for not being able to credit your debit card instead of give you cash back; that’s the procedure. You cannot hold the cop responsible for giving you a ticket for following too closely, even though you didn’t cause an accident; that’s the procedure. You cannot hold the concentration camp guard responsible for beating the inmates; that is what the procedure dictates when the inmates demand freedom. This may be a slippery slope argument, but the point is valid. If we lose the capacity to evaluate our actions in the here and now, that degradation will perpetuate and permeate into larger and more significant facets of our lives.

Additionally, when we rely on procedures, we lose the capacity to adapt quickly to changing environments. If the procedure is to write up a report and send it to Stan in HR, have him review it, and then forward it to accounting, it makes it really difficult to get our addressed changed in the system. However, if the system is open source, and we can change our address on our own when it’s needed, the system constantly evolves and grows as we change and grow. This system of constant evolution and adaptation to the ever changing needs of humanity can only come from a state of total freedom, from a state of anarchy.

In order for us to flourish as individuals, we must live in a civilization that has the capacity to adapt to our ever changing needs and desires. A civilization is a group of people that have chosen to live together freely and only voluntary exchanges are permitted, but a civilization is not an abstract concept. A civilization is the people that comprise it. Those people will necessarily be able to adopt the procedures that work and adapt to situations in which the procedures do not apply. Those people will be capable of critically thinking and acting upon their own sound judgement. Those are the kinds of people I want to be around because that is the kind of person I am. I buck the trend of blind conformity to the norm as often as I believe it is necessary and just, and I do it because it is the right thing to do. I want to demonstrate a better way to live, and most importantly, I want individuals to think critically for themselves. Will you join me in my pursuit for anarchy so together we can all flourish?

Curiosity to Explain the World?

Are you curious? Curiosity is defined as the desire to learn or know about anything. It is also described as inquisitiveness. Do you have an interest in learning about anything? If someone presents an idea to you, do you wish to learn more? If you meet someone new, do you like learning about them? More importantly, do you have people in your life that are curious about you and are you curious about the people in your life? Curiosity is a lifelong pursuit, and it is a great virtue to seek in your friends and significant other.

You are going to grow and change, and so are the people in your life. If you want to have long lasting meaningful relationships with them, you are going to want to be curious about them, and vice versa. Let’s focus just on your significant other. If you think you know who they are without continuing to learn and understand them, then you are going to lose sight of who they become. Likewise, if your partner is not inquiring about you, your thoughts and feelings, your preferences and why you have them, then your relationship is not going to work out.

Curiosity is more than simply asking, “How are you doing today?” or “How are you feeling.” It is asking, “When you learned how to play guitar, what was the hardest chord for you to learn and why?” And then it is asking, perhaps at another time, “What is your favorite chord to play, why, and how has that changed as you have improved in skill?” These seem like college essay questions, and they are composed as such here for the sake of brevity. The idea is that the questions will be broken into parts as you have a dialogue with your partner or prospective partner.

The goal should not be simply to learn the answers to the questions, but to understand your partner’s preferences and how they arrived there. If you are having a conversation about a challenge your partner overcame, you learn not just about their struggles but how they deal with them. If you are discussing a time in which your partner was extremely happy, you learn about what makes them happy as well as why it does. If you discuss causes or pursuits that are important to your partner, you learn about what matters, why it matters, and you start to understand their values. From this, you can start to understand their virtues as you spend time with them and experience the choices they make and actions they take. This is what leads to a meaningful connection and relationship.

It is possible that you will learn things about your prospective partner that are a turn off to you, but that is OK. You are not obligated to marry, or even like the person once you start to understand who they are. Curiosity can save you from making big mistakes in the dating world as well as help you find deep, meaningful connection. If the person you are dating is not consistent with their answers and actions, curiosity will help you figure this out really quickly. Likewise, if the person is very consistent, and perhaps more insightful than you would have imagined, curiosity will bring this to light. Additionally, if your prospective partner lacks any curiosity about you, it is at the least an issue that needs addressed and at most, a reason to end the dating.

Curiosity will also help you navigate the rest of the world around you. We live in a big, complex place, and the more you think you know, the less you will learn. Curiosity will help you understand the systems that are in place and if they are the best possible solution to the problems we face. It will help you assert yourself and find success on your own terms. You will notice curiosity as a recurring theme in my writing as my inquisitiveness helps me understand the topics about which I write, and hopefully it will help you understand them as well. Curiosity will also help you understand anarchy, so I hope you pursue curiosity as a meaningful virtue. Then, together, we can help humanity flourish!