Open Mic 2014

Thought we could have a regular open mic to continue past discussions and begin new ones.



  1. To start things off, let me address a few issues.

    a) Plainly, I don’t think the new “pot” laws are going to be a big deal. In the long run, there will be less crime and people in jail vs. say if alcohol was suddenly legalized. While I don’t smoke (anything), those that I do know who partake in it , there are really no changes in how they act. To me, it’s not much different that a regular cigarette, once the body has become used to it. Amateurs get stoned and stupid (as with alcohol), regular pot smokers remain normal.

    b). Philosophy: Anita, remember, philosophy didn’t just fall from the sky, it is an invention of man, just like religion. Man are far from perfect and everything that man has invented has flaws. Philosophy is no different. It’s been around a long time and guess what, evil still exists, whether these genius’s can see them and we can’t, mean’s not one wit (as the Flagster likes to say). But, we can still learn from it and maybe one day figure it all out. Don’t give up! People change their thinking all the time, after all, it has been said that there are no Atheist’s in foxholes 🙂

    • Gman,

      Philosophy is not religion.
      “study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language”

      With such a poor understanding of what Philosophy is – equating it to “religion” – is a primary reason why so many are so fundamentally ethically twisted.

      • Flagster, Didn’t say Philosophy was religion, only that both were invented by man. I also said to not give up, despite the distractions, it will all come into focus at some point. So, WHO wrote the philosophy that you adhere too?

        • Gman,

          That is like saying a car and Harry Potter are invented by man….

          You pick two things that are not the same, and use them in the same sentence creates an inference that is WRONG.

          Instead, say “science” and “philosophy” are TOOLS that man uses to investigate the Universe. They are NOT inventions.

          • Ok, fair enough, let’s look at the tools. Scientific determinations (notice that discoveries) are constantly changing as new information is found, correct? Why? Because man makes those determinations, therefore, they are always subject to change as the information changes. The tool of thinking (for lack of a better definition), like science, is subject to the whims of man, as new information becomes available. Because philosophies differ depending on WHO determines what the measurement is.

            With that said, YOUR philosophy and the philosophies of others, didn’t get hatched from the egg of a Dodo bird, it was INVENTED by man. Now, back to my question that you refuse to answer, WHO’s philosophy do you adhere too? Confucious? (sp) 😆

            • No.
              Facts do not change.
              Theories change.

              The methodology of thinking did not come about by whim.
              That is how you are doing it, though

              Methodology of science, or philosophy exists as the best means to accomplish those goals.

              6,000+ years (in the case of philosophy) of men thinking about thinking creates a serious body of work on the process.

              There is not “Confucius” philosophy.
              There is just “Philosophy.”

              There are bodies of thought – and no one body encompasses all.

              • I mostly believe you, but depending on who decides what’s a fact also determines if those “facts change”. But, then they weren’t facts to begin with. (e.g. Global Warming)

                I found a 6 part series on philosophy on “top documentary” and was considering watching it to try and get a better handle on the subject. Nothing personal, but you SUCK as a teacher 🙂

                All these men that create this big body of work, at some point, at least one man (maybe more than just one) wrote down the conclusions of 6000+ years of philosophical discoveries. Those conclusions (or conclusion) are what you now follow. If both you and JAC understand it, then it’s on paper. WHO? WROTE? WHAT? YOU? FOLLOW?

  2. .

  3. Dale,

    Let’s summarize the conundrum this way. If you believe that Theft is evil and unacceptable then how do you behave in a world filled with thieves? How do you provide for you and family when Thieves dominate the economic and political world?

    I submit that this is the dilemma most here face. It is not so much a lack of clear principles, it is not being able to reconcile the real world and how we conduct ourselves in it, with those principles.

    This is the “necessary pain” that BF is referencing. To live in strict adherence to “principles” which conflict with the reality around us can be very painful.

    This infers that principles are not based on reality.

    But they absolutely are.

    They are the means to measure one’s own actions – actions IN reality – to be moral or not.

    Look, you can kill or not kill. Both are real actions (or real avoidance of an action).

    The question is: which is moral? That is what principles provide.

    It is not a reconciliation. It is a guide to one’s own action.

    I do not use my principles to judge you. How can I? If I do such, I am declaring my principles superior … but how? By my declaring?

    But I use my principles to guide my actions

    • I do not use my principles to judge you.

      Really? Really? The term bubblehead comes to mind. This comes to mind ” is a primary reason why so many are so fundamentally ethically twisted.” That’s judgment my Pirate friend. Ask Anita if she feels “judged” by you and your man made philosophy. Want to bet what her answer is?

    • We all use our principle to guide our actions..It’s called living.

      • You addressed that to Dale. It was actually me who posted a comment of JAC’s. So you and JAC are in disagreement

      • Thus, you are a bubble head.

        Merely “living” means you seek whatever you think is good for you, now, without much thought of consequences beyond today. You truly do not know if what you do is moral or immoral since your only measure is you “survived another day” – that is, the philosophy of barbarians.

        • Sounds like judgment to me, Anita…. 🙂

          • Damn right it is.

          • You lefties used to be the only barbarians..scoot over, you have plenty of company now. But I do find it funny that these two can’t even agree between themselves what a core is, and they want the barbarians to jump on board. We’re all in trouble, and we’re taking them down with us.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      “This infers that principles are not based on reality.”

      That certainly was not my intent, nor do I think it does. Maybe it is not clear as it could be.

      I was trying to get to the same point you make in your clarification.

      Once one has established a principle, they must test it against the real world. If the principle is sound but the world is filled with conflicting values, each of us must then decide HOW we will live within that world AND according to our principles.

      So if you believe theft is wrong and a core value, but the world is run by thieves, WHAT do you do in the conduct of your life. Do you ONLY deal with honest men, or do you continue dealing with thieves while holding onto your wallet.

      If you cannot support you family without participating, what is your course of action?

      These are the dilemmas most people face on a daily basis.

      Granted, they lack clarity of understanding the base principles and this adds to their stress or confusion. But never the less, it is the more frequent conflict most people face.

      • Granted, they lack clarity of understanding the base principles and this adds to their stress or confusion. But never the less, it is the more frequent conflict most people face.

        Actually, I haven’t been stressed or confused about life or what I face each day. Not quite sure why all you brainiacs believe you have some higher power to live a good and fruitful life (without the stress you claim we all have) because you have figured out something that, no one man has written (as it seems today), and very few people follow.

        You guys need to get your terms straight as well. Between the two of you and the differing terms, it’s only making matters worse.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I was using the terms stress and confusion in the context of the conflict, tension or contradiction between a person’s values and their daily actions in a world that contains conflict with those values.

          And you are ABSOLUTELY under such stress. Otherwise you would be posting each day how happy you are with our current Govt and economic and National situation.

          Yet you are not happy and you post complaints each day. Therefore you are in fact under stress due to the “stress” between certain of your principles, which you cannot articulate, and the reality you face around you each day.

          I do not need to use the same terms as BF nor do I need to make the same arguments. On many things we agree. On many others we disagree.

          Most of the disagreements, however, are in the realm of actions and their feasibility/practicality. This difference stems from a slightly different description of our Core Principles.

          There is no UNIFIED THEORY of philosophy or philosophical concepts. That is the point. But if we all made the effort to find the proper principles based on reason, rather than whim or dictate, there is a good chance that there would become a NORMATIVE THEORY of Proper Concepts.

      • “So if you believe theft is wrong and a core value, but the world is run by thieves, WHAT do you do in the conduct of your life. Do you ONLY deal with honest men, or do you continue dealing with thieves while holding onto your wallet.”

        What I do to others gives right for others to do to me.

        Thus, I do not steal since I do not want to be a victim of theft.

        Others steal.
        That does not at all change my position. I do not steal.

        Just because others may act in contradiction to my principle does not mean I must contradict my principle in response.

    • Please explain what you mean when you say you will not use your principles to judge other people-How can you not ? and if your principals aren’t superior -why do you follow them?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Great question. Was about to post the same when I saw you beat me.

        I am curious what the answer will be.

  4. plainlyspoken says:

    Morning Gman,

    I will somewhat disagree with you on the recreational pot issue not becoming a problem, only time will tell us for sure. But, while I could care less about idiots making the choice to do idiotic things to themselves, I do foresee some changes occurring. More idiots will drive under the influence of marijuana now since they don’t have to worry about some cop smelling it in their car or finding their stash. The ignorant idiots will do so under the impression that cops have no way to detect their being under the influence of a drug – which is pure BS. How many of these idiots will add to the accident rates before they are caught, or become repeat offenders (like drunk drivers)?

    Minors will now work harder to get their hands on pot. Use to be they needed an adult to get them alcohol, now it will be pot & alcohol they’ll be after. How much extra resources (i.e. our stolen tax dollars) are now going to be used up by law enforcements and the courts on these idiots?

    “Amateurs get stoned and stupid (as with alcohol), regular pot smokers remain normal.”

    Please tell me you don’t really believe this? G, that’s pure nonsense. Do “regular” drunks remain normal? Not hardly and neither will regular pot smokers. Regular users get just as stoned and stupid as those who consume alcohol – I’ve dealt with enough of both categories of idiots in my career years.

    Sorry G, but this is a belief bus I won’t ride on. While there will be some “positive” consequences of legal recreational pot, there will also be negatives as well – pretty much – in my guess – offsetting each other in the long run.

    • It’s cool Plainly. I’m curious as to how things work out over the long term. Right now it’s a novelty, but those usually subside in time.

      As a kid, alcohol, cigarettes and pot were always available. The law was not a deterrence, other than not having pot and alcohol in public. That was the key to staying out of trouble.

      Drunks, LOL. Most of my family on my Dad’s side were heavy drinkers. There was a time that I was too. Over time, I drank slower and drank less. The effects of alcohol also changed, the “staggering drunk” effects became a rarity. The body tolerates more and more until it really don’t work much anymore. Pot is much the same way, always takes more and more to get “stoned”. Older smokers don’t get “stoned”, they more or less just get relaxed a little, but not tired. Just passing on what I’ve done and seen.

      If, as you say, offsetting as far as positives vs. negatives, then freedom wins. Since you guys are the first, let’s see how it goes! 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Spousal Unit Leader and I were laughing about this NEW PHRASE last night.

      We were wondering what NEW phrase would come up next to try and make our weather seem like some NEW CATASTROPHE that OBVIOUSLY is caused by man caused climate change.

      My entire life these weather events have been called “The Polar Express”.

      A coincidence of pressure system locations and dipping of the jet stream which allows the polar cold to FLOW south in larger than usual quantity and duration.

      Google up massive Cattle deaths in Idaho, Montana and the Rocky Mtn region in the 70’s and again in the 80’s. Also the Orange Groves FREEZING in Florida and Southern California.

  5. plainlyspoken says:

    WARNING^^^^^Pissy rant posting. Does contain foul language and insults – reader discretion advised**********

    From the “For F**k’s Sake File” *clink, clink, & clink!* (I’m in a mood to fill the jar today).

    Calling all war hawks who want to praise the wars we fought at the insistence of George W and Barrack (along with the gullible backing of those shysters in Congress) –

    Explain again how we “won” in Iraq and made the country safe for the people and us here is the far-away fing *clink* USA?

    Iraqi security forces and allies from Sunni tribes have been battling militants to recapture two key cities in Iraq’s western Anbar province, Fallujah and Ramadi, the provincial capital. Fighters from an Al Qaeda-linked group, known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, control the center of Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, and part of the nearby Ramadi.

    The Al Qaeda fighters’ seizure of the two cities — once bloody battlegrounds for U.S. troops — poses the most serious challenge to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-led government since the departure of American forces in late 2011.

    And tell me why an fing *clink* numbnuts like this guy should be wanting to get us entangled IN ANY fing *clink* WAY back in Iraq?

    “While we cannot reintroduce ground soldiers in Iraq after leaving, I do support robust intelligence operations and, in some cases, limited air power in assisting the Iraqi government,” he said.

    I thought “we” made the damn *clink* country safe and self-reliant the first fing *clink* time “we” were forced to give the lives of our young men & women to such an fing *clink* “noble” cause of ridding the world of Saddam Hussein/al-Queda there?

    Hell didn’t even take the five years I predicted it would for the fing *clink* country to fall apart again. Fing *clink* ignorant asses *clink* who wanted war screwed the pooch AGAIN (long track record of doing that).

    P.S. War hawks take note – it will turn out NO better in Afghanistan either. We are just wasting lives of our service members and innocent civilians there too. So, put on your big boy/girl pants and admit you know fing *clink* jack-all about fixing the rest of the world – either by diplomacy OR military force. You dumb f**kers *clink, clink* can’t even find solutions – real solutions – to problems in this country. All of you morons should be permanently detained at Guantanamo (and that’s my nice solution)!

    /end rant

    Anita, my dear, please let me know if I missed any fines.

    • Are you kidding? I’m not touching that with a ten foot fucking pole! I’m scared of you now 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Well, I understand. I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Maybe I’ll get better as the day progresses – at least one can hope.

        • I happen to agree with you Plainly, what the hell is wrong with these idiots? Iraq is a battle of the two different sects of Muslim’s as it was before we showed up. It’s not about terrorism as these idiots in the media want everyone to believe. Besides, if it is Al Qeida, our criminal government already approved the move. That is their thanks for the help in Libya and Syria. I doubt that they will get all of Iraq, just the western province.

  6. I’ve asked this before of BF and I’ll ask it again now….not expecting an answer, but hey, its a new year so what’s the harm in trying again. JAC – don’t think I ever asked you, but please feel free to answer as well. If either of you have answered this in the past, my mistake…please post your answer once again.

    What is your core principle?

    Perhaps by actually articulating your own core principle, you can better ‘educate’ the rest of us bubbleheads and help us to understand what it is you are getting at….

    • Way to embrace the bubblehead, Buck! I knew I liked you for some reason! 🙂

    • A teacher without a proper example is no teacher, he is a fraud. That is philosophy 101 according to ME 😆

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Good luck getting a straight answer to that question. lol

      • It seems I have more questions now than I did before this topic came up, WTF? 🙂

        • I would like to truly extend this question to JAC. Even if they use the core principal of someone else, at least it’s something besides someone’s fantasy.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            How do you know their principle is not simply a fantasy?

            • because it can be referred to. It has a term with a definition that we can understand. My referral of fantasy was the answer to the question. It seems BF isn’t willing to share his, or maybe he can’t articulate either 😉 Thanks for your answer, it does help 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Just because something can be referred to or has been described by someone or exists as a definition does not mean it is NOT a fantasy.

                For example, Altruism is REAL. However as a Moral Standard it is based on FANTASY or WHIM, not any serious effort we could call REASON or RATIONAL.

                Fantasy here is similar to WHIM. Concepts which are simply created without a defense, or those created with a defense that is irrational or illogical. In short, they do not conform with REALITY.

              • UGH! I’m not getting my point across very well. Let’s try this. Flag was asked what his CP is, many times. The feeling I got is that the IDEA of articulating such a thing was a “fantasy” because we couldn’t get an answer from the Philosophy King. It is hard to understand a concept without an example. If one can’t give an example of the concept, then the concept is fantasy. Is that better?

              • Geez. you guys are a bunch of twit-heads.

                For the last couple or three years, I have posted -oh at least two dozen times – my core principle.

                Pages and pages on top of that regarding its consequences.

                Yet, you twit heads can’t read and think I’ve not provided it. (Buck, you twit, it is you who has never provided one, not me)

              • Let me repeat myself. You SUCK as a teacher. 🙄

              • No, I don’t.

                My “student” is underwhelming.

            • No he doesn’t G. He has great patience. We are just not at his level….and that is a compliment not a slam.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Happy New Year to you Sir. Hope you and family are doing well.

      My Core MORAL principle is best summarized using another person’s phrase: “Rational Self Interest”.

      The MORAL standards or principles which are supported by this are Freedom and Liberty.

      But again “Rational” also applies to Freedom and Liberty.

      So Freedom is tempered by the Core ETHICAL Principle of non-initiation of FORCE.

      There is an important point to make here that applies to the whole discussion of “principles”.

      My view is that we need to deal with a complete “Philosophical System” if you will. A collection of concepts in all areas. Not just select a “Core Moral Principle”.

      There are Core Concepts or Principles to be identified in other areas, not just in the filed of Ethics or Morality.

      I tried to make this case long ago by using Ayn Rand’s work as an example. If your Moral principles are not in sync with your Metaphysical or Epistemological concepts you will get a rotten foundation just as easily if you simply picked a BAD Moral Principle itself.

      I view ALTRUISM, as defined by the man who coined the term, as EVIL. It is also IRRATONAL.

      • JAC, isn’t “self interest” as a core principal pretty much human nature? I have a similar set of thoughts and beliefs as you, although we differ in how to address many issues. Notice I didn’t include your term “rational” in the over all idea. That is because not everyone’s principal’s qualify as rational, at least in my book of thoughts.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I do NOT think that self interest is a core principle among humans.

          On the other hand, humans will always act in their own self interest when push comes to shove.

          Recognition of this REALITY was part of the study and introspection which led to accepting Self Interest as a MORAL standard.

          Remember, MORAL Standards are concepts to guide our actions. Guides which we choose as opposed to simple make based on “animal instinct”.

          This is the key. HUMANS can CHOOSE to change, if ever they want to. Unless of course you don’t believe in this world or Reason and instead choose to live in the world of Pre-determined Outcomes or Darwin’s world of Brute Force Wins.

          • When this subject began to be discussed, I got a headache trying to figure out what terms to use. I started with “self survival” but that didn’t work out so well because circumstances change so much. Would I save BF from drowning at the loss of my own life, not very likely there buddy. Would I save my child at the expense of my life, YES. So, with two different circumstances, there is two different outcomes. Self Interest seems to fit in definition, but also seems to be human nature to me. Maybe even a natural principal as it can be applied to the animal kingdom in many cases.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              If humans ALWAYS act in their own self interest, regardless of the situation or relationships, then that behavior could be considered part of “Human Nature”.

              If that is true then it is a METAPHYSICAL principle or truth. I think a better metaphysical term would be Self Preservation, however.

              However, we are discussing MORAL principles. Such things are concepts we develop to guide our lives in ways to improve upon our existence or to meet our Metaphysical “nature”.

              Thus adding the word “RATIONAL” to self-interest and replacing “preservation” with the word “interest” makes the phrase a MORAL principle that is supporting the Human Nature of Self PRESERVATION.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                “………. makes the phrase a MORAL principle that is supporting the Human Nature of Self PRESERVATION.”

                Would be more accurate if that read: “………… makes the phrase a MORAL principle that is consistent with the Human Nature of Self PRESERVATION.”

                It is the universal truth of self preservation combined with the epistemological concept of REASON that SUPPORT the Moral Principle. Not the other way around.

                But the Moral Principle does not undermine nor is it inconsistent with the other two.

                For example, Altruism undermines and contradicts “self preservation”.

            • Exactly.
              So dig deeper to ask what you “used to measure” your different actions.

      • And a happy and healthy new year to you as well Sir!

        So your core principle is “Rational Self Interest”. Firstly, I thank you for providing a direct answer to the question! Secondly, I reiterate G’s statement that that seems to me to be a part of general human nature. Thirdly, sounds a bit ‘wishy-washy’ to me….though don’t get me wrong, I fully approve of such a principle for the ‘shades of grey’ world we live in.

        Now…if you’ll excuse me for a minute…..BF…paging BF…. 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:


          It is my core MORAL principle. Lets not forget that all important detail.

          It is NOT part of human nature, not by any means. Much of humanity seems to have no problem “initiating force against others” to get what they want.

          It is not wishy-washy in my view. So I await your explanation as to why you think this is true.

          • Fair enough — I did omit “Moral” there…

            I dunno – don’t have enough time to devote to this today, but “rational self interest” just strikes me as a bit wishy-washy — which again, I think is generally a good thing.

            But to clarify my understanding of your position — you have both a core MORAL principle and a core ETHICAL principle (both of which you defined above), correct?

            • Just A Citizen says:



              MORAL is the standard by which I act for good as opposed to bad, or evil.

              ETHIC is the standard by which I act in dealing with other humans in particular.

              Ethical standards in my construct are subsets of the Moral Principles by which you live.

              Politics and Law should then follow as subparts of both Moral and Ethical standards.

              Thus “non-initiation of force” or the limitation on use of force to “self-defense” should extend to politics, aka Govt, as well as the common and Govt body of law.

              The concept of Justice as equal application of law, is thus a core principle of politics and law which is consistent with the ethical principle of using force ONLY in self defense or gaining restitution for the use of force by another.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Only time I’ll spend with you all today….I believe the one thing that can be counted on at all times is people “acting in their self interests” What ever those interest may be. Comments like each to their own comes to mind. It is human nature. Rational self interest to one person, may be deemed irrational to another. I do not believe “ALTRUISM, as defined by the man who coined the term, as EVIL. It is also IRRATONAL” as JAC stated.
        There are several definitions of altruism regardless, they boil down to the three following points which were taken from a psychology journal.
        •Biological Reasons: Kin selection – We may be more altruistic towards those we are related to because it increases the odds that our blood relations will survives and transmit their genes to future generations.
        •Neurological Reasons: Altruism activates reward centers in the brain. Neurobiologists have found that when engaged in an altruistic act, the pleasure centers of the brain become active.
        •Cognitive Reasons: While the definition of altruism involves doing for others without reward, there may still be cognitive incentives that are not obvious. For example, we might help others to relieve out own distress or because being kind to others upholds our view of ourselves as kind, empathetic people.
        Altruistic acts in one way or another are all related to self interest. I can not see how Mother Theresa can be deemed “Evil” …..just injecting this in response to the earlier self preservation
        comments. Look at peoples true self interest and usually you will find their core principles.

        I promised in earlier chapters to try and find the NY Times climate change headlines over the past 120 years. Didn’t find the exact one but this one will do.

    • Does no one actually read posts???

      Literally, I have posted it two dozen times.


      “What I do to others gives them right to do to me”

      • Does the opposite apply, what they do to you, gives you the right to do to them?

        • It is not an opposite, but a corollary — “a statement that follows readily from a previous statement.”

          Opposite would be:
          “What I do not others gives them no right to do to me”

          Corollary Statement would be:
          “What others do to me (and others) gives me (and others) the right to do to them”

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Glad to see you finally adopted the JAC theory of STICKS as your standard. OK, that is a slight joke so put your sword back in the scabbard.

        However, it looks a little suspect to me as a moral PRINCIPLE unto itself. More like a logical argument made in defense of a principle which has not been stated. Well, it was stated some time ago but not recently.

        • No, it is the CP
          The only thing underpinning it would be:
          “Man must act to live”

          But that leads directly to my CP as the principle of guiding action

          The other path leads to the opposite of my CP – that one acts as a barbarian with no thought upon consequences.

          So, that is my CP as it is the root guide of my action.

  7. Good news! The chickens did quite well in the minus 14 degree weather last night. The current temp is minus 8 with a stiff breeze making it around a 30 below wind chill. I have two heat lamps in the coop and the birds looked good and were ready to eat as usual. Only 1 egg, a pink one. They don’t lay much in this weather.

  8. ” Flag was asked what his CP is, many times. The feeling I got is that the IDEA of articulating such a thing was a “fantasy” because we couldn’t get an answer from the Philosophy King”


    You simply don’t read, that’s all.

    • Well, well, I think you need to pull a few layers off that onion, Buster. LOL 🙂

    • So, when I say “I treat others as I expect them to treat me”, that is what you would call a core principal?

      • Well, badly articulated.

        How do you create an expectation upon others whom you have no control over?

        How about, instead:
        “Do to others as you would have them do to you”

      • But really the test, Gman, is exercise an example.

        If you give flowers to Anita, do you EXPECT her to give flowers back?
        And if she doesn’t, what do you believe you have a right to do?

        • I would give Anita Flowers simply as an act of kindness, and I would hope she simply acts kindly to me as well. If she acts unkindly, then I may choose to walk away.

          • So “expectation” is not there, so it is not there in your principle either.

            Biblical phrase? Not just.
            The Golden Rule exists, in different words, in every major culture across all history across the whole world. It is the Universal Golden Rule.

            Ancient Babylon

            The Code of Hammurabi (1780 BC)[10] dealt with the reciprocity of the Lex talionis in ways such as limiting retribution, as they did concepts of retribution (literally “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”).
            Ancient China

            The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:

            “Zi Gong asked, saying, “Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not reciprocity such a word?” – Confucius[11][12]
            “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” – Confucius[13]
            “If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” – Mozi
            “The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.” –Laozi[14]
            “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” –Laozi[15]

            Ancient Egypt

            An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you.”[16][discuss] An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus: “That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.”[17]
            Ancient Greece

            The Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:

            “Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.” – Pittacus[18] (c. 640–568 BC)
            “Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” – Thales[19] (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
            “What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. ” – Sextus the Pythagorean.[20] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.[21]
            “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.” – Isocrates[22] (436–338 BC)
            “What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” – Epictetus[23]
            “It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing ‘neither to harm nor be harmed’),[24] and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life.” – Epicurus[25]
            “…it has been shown that to injure anyone is never just anywhere.” – Socrates, in Plato’s Republic. Plato is the first person known to have said this.[26]

            Ancient Persia
            Ancient Rome

            Seneca, maybe following Publilius Syrus,[27] told “ab alio expectes alteri quod feceris” (expect from others what you did to them)[28][29] and “non est quod credas quemquam fieri aliena infelicitate felicem” (it is not so, as you might believe, that one is made happy through the unhappiness of others).[30][31]
            Sanskrit Tradition

            In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, “Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control – are the ten wealth of character (self). O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.”

            “tasmād_dharma-pradhānéna bhavitavyam yatātmanā | tathā cha sarva-bhūtéṣhu vartitavyam yathātmani ||” (तस्माद्धर्मप्रधानेन भवितव्यं यतात्मना । तथा च सर्वभूतेषु वर्तितव्यं यथात्मनि ॥ Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9)
            Tamil Tradition

            In the Section on Virtue, and Chapter 32 of the Tirukkuṛaḷ (c. 200 BC – 500 AD), Tiruvaḷḷuvar says: Why does a man inflict upon other creatures those sufferings, which he has found by experience are sufferings to himself ? (K. 318) Let not a man consent to do those things to another which, he knows, will cause sorrow. (K. 316) He furthermore opined that it is the determination of the spotless (virtuous) not to do evil, even in return, to those who have cherished enmity and done them evil. (K. 312) The (proper) punishment to those who have done evil (to you), is to put them to shame by showing them kindness, in return and to forget both the evil and the good done on both sides. (K. 314)
            Religion and philosophy
            Global ethic
            Main article: Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration

            The “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic”[32] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[33][34] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule (“We must treat others as we wish others to treat us”) as the common principle for many religions.[35] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world’s major faiths, including Baha’i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[35][36] In the folklore of several cultures{31} the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.
            Bahá’í Faith
            See also: Bahá’í Faith

            The Writings of the Bahá’í Faith while encouraging everyone to treat others as they would treat themselves, go further by introducing the concept of preferring others before oneself:

            O SON OF MAN! Deny not My servant should he ask anything from thee, for his face is My face; be then abashed before Me.

            Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.

            And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.

            Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.

            Beware lest ye harm any soul, or make any heart to sorrow; lest ye wound any man with your words, be he known to you or a stranger, be he friend or foe.

            See also: Buddhism

            Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, c. 623 – c. 543 B.C.)[46][47] made this principle one of the cornerstones of his ethics in the 6th century BC. It occurs in many places and in many forms throughout the Tripitaka.

            Comparing oneself to others in such terms as “Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I,” he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
            —Sutta Nipata 705

            One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
            —Dhammapada 10. Violence

            Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
            —Udanavarga 5:18

            Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.[48]

            See also: Christian ethics

            According to Simon Blackburn, although the Golden Rule “can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition”, the rule is “sometimes claimed by Christianity as its own”.[49] The “Golden Rule” has been attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, though he himself uses it to summarize the Old Testament: “Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets” (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31). The common English phrasing is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A similar form appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583).[50] The Golden Rule also has roots in the two old testament edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 (“Forget about the wrong things people do to you, and do not try to get even. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”; see also Great Commandment) and Leviticus 19:34 (“But treat them just as you treat your own citizens. Love foreigners as you love yourselves, because you were foreigners one time in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”).

            The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach, accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, also express a negative form of the golden rule:

            “Do to no one what you yourself dislike.”
            —Tobit 4:15

            “Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes.”
            —Sirach 31:15

            At the time of Hillel, an elder contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, the negative form of the golden rule already must have been proverbial, perhaps because of Tobit 4:15. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:

            “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
            —Talmud, Shabbat 31a

            Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the golden rule:

            Matthew 7:12

            Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets.

            Luke 6:31

            Do to others what you would want them to do to you.

            A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment, is Luke 10:25-28

            25And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”

            26What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ” 28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.

            The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering the question, “Who is my neighbor?”, by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that “your neighbour” is anyone in need.[51] Jesus’ teaching, however, goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasises the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another. Taken as a rule of judgment, both formulations of the golden rule, the negative and positive, are equally applicable.[52]

            In one passage of the New Testament Paul the Apostle refers to the golden rule:

            Galatians 5:14

            14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

            See also: Confucianism

            “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.”

            Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: “Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?”
            The Master replied: “How about ‘shu’ [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?”

            –Confucius, Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton (another translation is in the online Chinese Text Project)[53]

            The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects, which can be found in the online Chinese Text Project
            See also: Existentialism

            When we say that man chooses for himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and noting can be better for us unless it is better for all.
            —Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism, pgs. 291 – 292[54]

            See also: Hinduism

            One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
            —Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)[55]


            श्रूयतां धर्मसर्वस्वं श्रुत्वा चाप्यवधार्यताम्।
            आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत्।।

            If the entire “Dharma” (spiritual and moral laws) can be said in a few words, then it is – that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others. (Padmapuraana, shrushti 19/357-358)

            In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advices the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, “Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control – are the ten wealth of character (self). O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.”

            “tasmād_dharma-pradhānéna bhavitavyam yatātmanā | tathā cha sarva-bhūtéṣhu vartitavyam yathātmani ||” (तस्माद्धर्मप्रधानेन भवितव्यं यतात्मना । तथा च सर्वभूतेषु वर्तितव्यं यथात्मनि ॥ Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9)
            See also: Humanism

            Many different sources claim the Golden Rule as a humanist principle:[56][57]

            Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s corollary – “do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself” – more pragmatic.[56]
            —Anonymous, Think Humanism[58]

            Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you. [is] (…) the single greatest, simplest, and most important moral axiom humanity has ever invented, one which reappears in the writings of almost every culture and religion throughout history, the one we know as the Golden Rule. Moral directives do not need to be complex or obscure to be worthwhile, and in fact, it is precisely this rule’s simplicity which makes it great. It is easy to come up with, easy to understand, and easy to apply, and these three things are the hallmarks of a strong and healthy moral system. The idea behind it is readily graspable: before performing an action which might harm another person, try to imagine yourself in their position, and consider whether you would want to be the recipient of that action. If you would not want to be in such a position, the other person probably would not either, and so you should not do it. It is the basic and fundamental human trait of empathy, the ability to vicariously experience how another is feeling, that makes this possible, and it is the principle of empathy by which we should live our lives.
            —Adam Lee, Ebon Musings, “A decalogue for the modern world”[59]

            In the view of Greg M. Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, “ ’do unto others’ … is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely. But not a single one of these versions of the golden rule requires a God”.[60]
            See also: Islam

            The Golden Rule is implicitly expressed in some verses of the Qur’an, but is explicitly declared in the sayings of Muhammad. A common transliteration is: ِAheb li akheek ma tuhibu li nafsik’.

            From the Qur’an: the first verse recommends the positive form of the rule, and the subsequent verses condemn not abiding the negative form of the Golden Rule:

            “…and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.”
            — Qur’an (Surah 24, “The Light,” v. 22)

            “Woe to those… who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due”
            — Qur’an (Surah 83, “The Dealers in Fraud,” vv. 1–4)

            “…orphans and the needy, give them something and speak kindly to them. And those who are concerned about the welfare of their own children after their death, should have fear of God [Treat other people’s Orphans justly] and guide them properly.”
            — Qur’an (Surah 4, “The Women,” vv. 8-9)

            “O you who believe! Spend [benevolently] of the good things that you have earned… and do not even think of spending [in alms] worthless things that you yourselves would be reluctant to accept.”
            — Qur’an (Surah 2, “The Calf,” v. 267)

            “They assign daughters to Allah, Who is above having a child [whether male or female] and to themselves they assign what they desire [which is a male child]; And when the news of the birth of a female child is brought to one of them His face darkens and he hides his inward Grief and anger… They attribute to Allah what they dislike [For themselves] and their tongues assert the lie that the best reward will be theirs! Undoubtedly, the Hell fire shall be their lot and they will be foremost [in entering it].”
            — Qur’an (Surah 16, “The Honey Bees,” vv. 57-62)

            From the hadith, the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:

            A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]”
            —Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146

            “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
            —An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)[61]

            “Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.”
            —Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)[62]

            “That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”[62]

            “The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.”[62]

            Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says:

            “O’ my child, make yourself the measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you… Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you.”
            —Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 31 [63]

            Other hadiths calling for the golden rule are:

            Anas related that the prophet (peace be upon him) said: “None of you is truly a Muslim until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself”. (Reported in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari).

            Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and to enter paradise should treat other people as they wish to be treated themselves. (reported by Sahih Muslim).

            Do unto all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourself. (Reported by Abu Dawud)

            See also: Jainism and Ahimsa in Jainism

            In Jainism, the golden rule is firmly embedded in its entire philosophy and can be seen in its clearest form in the doctrines of Ahimsa and Karma

            The following quotation from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:

            Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential.

            In support of this Truth, I ask you a question – “Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?” If you say “yes it is”, it would be a lie. If you say, “No, It is not” you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.[64]

            Saman Suttam of Jinendra Varni[65] gives further insight into this precept:-

            All the living beings wish to live and not to die; that is why unattached saints prohibit the killing of living beings.
            —Suman Suttam , verse 148

            Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.
            —Suman Suttam , verse 150

            Killing a living being is killing one’s own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being.
            —Suman Suttam , verse 151

            See also: Judaism

            The Jewish sage and martyr Rabbi Akiba, following Hillel the Elder (c.110 BC, died 10 AD),[66] had singled out the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) as a basic principle of the Torah meaning, that the principle of love must have its foundation in Genesis verse 1, which teaches that all men are the offspring of Adam who was made in the image of God (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, iv.; Yer. Ned. ix. 41c; Genesis Rabba 24).[67] According to Jewish rabbinic literature, the first man Adam represents the unity of mankind. This is echoed in the modern preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And it is also taught, that Adam is last in order according to the evolutionary character of God’s creation:[67]

            In his[who?] commentary to the Torah verse (Hebrew: “ואהבת לרעך כמוך” ca.1300 BC):

            You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
            —Leviticus 19:18[68], the “Great Commandment”

            As Plaut points out, this is the earliest written version of the Golden Rule in the Bible in a positive form.[69]

            “Why was only a single specimen of man created first?[67] To teach us that he who destroys a single soul destroys a whole world and that he who saves a single soul saves a whole world;[67] furthermore, so no race or class may claim a nobler ancestry, saying, ‘Our father was born first’; and, finally, to give testimony to the greatness of the Lord, who caused the wonderful diversity of mankind to emanate from one type.[67] And why was Adam created last of all beings?[67] To teach him humility; for if he be overbearing, let him remember that the little fly preceded him in the order of creation.”[67]

            The Golden Rule originates in a well-known Torah verse (Hebrew: “ואהבת לרעך כמוך”):

            You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
            —Leviticus 19:18

            The Jewish Publication Society’s edition of Leviticus:

            Thou shalt not hate thy brother. in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.[70]

            This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule, which itself appears in various forms, positive and negative. It is the earliest written version of that concept in a positive form.[69]

            At the turn of the eras, the Jewish rabbis were discussing the scope of the meaning of Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34 extensively:

            The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.
            —Leviticus 19:34

            Commentators summed up foreigners (= Samaritans), proselytes (= ‘strangers who resides with you’) (Rabbi Akiba, bQuid 75b) or Jews (Rabbi Gamaliel, yKet 3,1; 27a) to the scope of the meaning.

            The Sage Hillel formulated a negative form of the golden rule. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:[71]

            That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn it.
            —Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the “Great Principle”

            On the verse, “Love your fellow as yourself,” the classic commentator Rashi quotes from Torat Kohanim, an early Midrashic text regarding the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiva: “Love your fellow as yourself — Rabbi Akiva says this is a great principle of the Torah.”[72]

            Israel’s postal service quoted from the previous Leviticus verse when it commemorated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a 1958 postage stamp.[73]
            See also: Mohism

            If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.

            Mozi regarded the golden rule as a corollary to the cardinal virtue of impartiality, and encouraged egalitarianism and selflessness in relationships.
            See also: Platonism

            The Golden Rule appears to be present in at least one of Plato’s dialogues:

            One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.”
            —Plato’s Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BC)

            See also: Scientology

            Consistent with the observation by Walter Terence Stace “that ‘doing as you would be done by’ includes taking into account your neighbor’s tastes as you would that he should take yours into account” (see Criticisms and responses to criticisms), Scientology addresses the issue concerning differences in values or interests by focusing on the values and interests of the recipient of the conduct:

            Thus today we have two golden rules for happiness: 1. Be able to experience anything; and 2. Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.
            —Scientology: A New Slant on Life, Two Rules for Happy Living[74][75][76]

            See also: Sikhism and Karma

            Whom should I despise, since the one Lord made us all.
            —p.1237, Var Sarang, Guru Granth Sahib, tr. Patwant Singh

            The truly enlightened ones are those who neither incite fear in others nor fear anyone themselves.
            —p.1427, Slok, Guru Granth Sahib, tr. Patwant Singh

            I am a stranger to no one, and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.
            —p.1299, Guru Granth Sahib

            See also: Taoism

            The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
            —Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

            Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
            —T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien

            The Way to Happiness
            See also: The Way to Happiness

            The Way to Happiness expresses the Golden Rule both in its negative/prohibitive form and in its positive form. The negative/prohibitive form is expressed in Precept 19 as:

            19. Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you.
            —The Way to Happiness, Precept 19[77][78]

            The positive form is expressed in Precept 20 as:

            20. Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you.
            —The Way to Happiness, Precept 20[79][80]

            See also: Wicca

            These eight words the Rede fulfill, ‘an ye harm none do as ye will.
            —The Wiccan Rede

            Here ye these words and heed them well, the words of Dea, thy Mother Goddess, “I command thee thus, O children of the Earth, that that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another, for violence and hatred give rise to the same. My command is thus, that ye shall return all violence and hatred with peacefulness and love, for my Law is love unto all things. Only through love shall ye have peace; yea and verily, only peace and love will cure the world, and subdue all evil.”
            —The Book of Ways, Devotional Wicca

            • So “expectation” is not there, so it is not there in your principle either.

              My CP is how I act towards others as a guide, it has nothing to do with how they act, it’s not their CP I’m articulating, it’s mine. I can’t control what others do.

              • Exactly my point, which is why I suggested your articulation of it was poor.
                You embedded “expectation” but really you held no such thing.

                Hence, I reworded it for you.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              I would like to add that the standard on limiting the use of force or physical force to cases of self defense and/or retaliation against others using force, has also been found throughout history and across many cultures and races.

              So we see that these TWO KEY PRINCIPLES have existed throughout history, yet we continue to suffer the pains caused by people who ignore them.

              People who construct “rationalizations” to violate these principles based on one reason or another. These are the notorious “gray zones” some like to embrace. 😉

          • I’m not giving you any flowers because you gave me flowers. I will certainly give you flowers tomorrow when you least expect it.

            • But you would likely say thank you and smile. That’s all that would matter, no flowers needed.

              • Take the damn flowers, would did something nice for me that day! 🙂

              • Anita, Mr. Philosophy King has been less than patient and less than kind to us. By his own CP, we have the right to act in kind and be unkind to him. But, we really haven’t done that. I have stuck to my CP and continue to be nice to him, despite my displeasure with his attitude. I don’t even care if I’m still a bubble head at this point in the discussion, at least we finally got some clarification as to what it takes to become a rockhead 😆

              • ” By his own CP, we have the right to act in kind and be unkind to him”

                You confuse “blunt truth” with “unkind”.

              • It is my interpretation, therefore it is fact. You can only change that interpretation by clarifying your actions. Therefore, based on your clarification, I have reacted in kind, Teacher 😉

        • plainlyspoken says:

          BF – I do read your posts and I find them – at times – clarifying and – again at times – confusing. Neither is a bad thing as in either case they force me to think (which is always a good thing). I continue to wrestle with this whole topic of core principles and will, especially since some of my own standards have such glaring contradictions in them.

          Now, I honestly can get behind your rewording of G’s comment to “do to others as you would have them do to you” and do try to have that as my base for life among humans. There are points I – so far – fail at, but I do try practice this daily. Yet, I ask, is that really a core principle? It seems to me, at the moment, that it is more a reasoned moral or ethical behavior since I am not sure you can articulate it as a “just because” is asking the “why”?

          JAC – Rational Self Interest? Does that mean, as a core principle of yours you could act in an irrational way (say giving your life for another) and there would be a rational self interest as the outcome that doesn’t benefit your continued existence?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            If I were to give my life for another it would be because that act would be in my Rational Self Interest.

            Most human sacrifice for others, is NOT RATIONAL nor is it in anyone’s Self Interest. Except that it may FEEL like the right thing to do.

            But this gets into the realm of human emotions and their role as feedback to our other principles.

            We can be “conditioned” to “believe” we should sacrifice ourselves for another.

            If we as individuals apply reason (rational) to the question we would probably come up with fewer valid examples of sacrifice.

            For example, knowingly substituting myself for my child on the gallows could surely be an act of Rational Self Interest, considering how I judge my child and my desire for my gene pool to continue.

            Where as deliberately getting killed to save a stranger is not rational. However, acting to save someone but getting killed by accident is not the same.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              “We can be “conditioned” to “believe” we should sacrifice ourselves for another.”

              So it would seem then that a cop who risks his life in stopping acts deemed unlawful really wouldn’t be in his/her rational self interest?

              I can completely agree that giving my life for my child would be rational, versus giving it for a stranger would not. i also understand your statement of getting killed to save a stranger, versus accidentally dying to save a stranger being two completely different things.

              Mmm, yes – this gives me more to ponder. Thank you.

              • Would fighting in a war to fend off an invading force be in rational self interest? I would say YES.

              • “Would fighting in a war to fend off an invading force be in rational self interest? I would say YES”

                You would probably be killed, and just as likely to lose the war anyway.

                Do you believe an invading force would be genocidal, or is the invasion merely politics?

                If the latter, it is merely an exchange of one tyranny for another tyranny. What have you gained or lost?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You are mixing up the concepts of “placing oneself at risk” with “knowingly sacrificing your life”.

                It would be irrational for a cop to “knowingly and purposefully getting himself killed to save a stranger”. At least in my view. It may not be in his/her view. It would depend on what that Cop felt was in their self interest.

                Remember, the use of the term “rational” here is to force realization that self interest is tempered by moral and ethical standards based on REASON. The same holds true for determining what self interest is as well as how it is pursued.

                It is used to delineate this concept/principle from that of “dog eat dog” or “Survival of the Strongest Brute”.

              • Flag,, Once again, circumstances. What if those answers can’t be made?

              • ” What if those answers can’t be made”

                Like what?

          • “I am not sure you can articulate it as a “just because” is asking the “why”?”

            Just because…

            Look, applying the principle does not means success in your life.
            You do not have to accept it either. There are other core principles, such as:
            “All for me and none for you”

            But it is a rock in the turmoil of ethics.

  9. Who supports the idea of extending unemployment benefits again?

    • Terrible idea.

      Apply the Law of Incentives.

      If you pay people not to work, you will succeed.

      All it does is merely delay people from getting work. Time will pass and they will be in the same position as they are now – except even longer out of work with the erosion of their skill set.

      Further, jobs are “now” not “future”. They will not take the jobs now, that are available, which may probably not be available “then”.

      • I agree. But it does tell us that the claimed recovery is just another LIE from Obama. Not a surprise.

        I’m also against upping the minimum wage. I think it’s gonna be an economic disaster for those making those wages.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I agree with BF – very bad idea. There is no incentive to employ oneself while one receives such “aid” and can take a vacation from the grind of making themselves self-sustaining.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Black Flag

    V.H. asked this question of you earlier. Since you are on the line I would like to see your answer. I am sure she would as well.

    January 7, 2014 at 12:29 pm (Edit)

    Please explain what you mean when you say you will not use your principles to judge other people-How can you not ? and if your principals aren’t superior -why do you follow them?

    • I do not use my principle to judge people.

      I use those people’s principles to judge those people.

      Look, there is no way I can demonstrate my superiority of principles – it would be merely “declarative”. But so is their claim. There is no objective measure to determine superiority when such is merely declarative.

      But I certainly can evaluate the exercise of YOUR principles to YOUR actions. If you contradict yourself, I absolutely know something is wrong – either that principle you have is wrong or your action is wrong.

  11. plainlyspoken says:

    Down here JAC.

    I agree it would be irrational for the cop as well. I guess I find it hard to understand how anyone would find it in their rational self interest. Many would – I would think – subscribe to Patton’s comment that one should not die for one’s country, but make the other poor sob die for his kind of ideal.

    I know I risked my life as a cop willingly, yet in the years since I quit that career work I find my actions then to have been irrational in that there was no true self-interest for me in it at all. It was society’s self interest that was being served – not mine. I could have done many other kinds of work to meet my interests of earning a living and been much safer doing so.

    “Remember, the use of the term “rational” here is to force realization that self interest is tempered by moral and ethical standards based on REASON. The same holds true for determining what self interest is as well as how it is pursued.”

    This statement I intend to hang on to for it makes a lot of sense to me.

  12. plainlyspoken says:

    Gman, down here.

    “Would fighting in a war to fend off an invading force be in rational self interest? I would say YES.”

    I disagree. I say no. We’ve tried that and recently in the past 12 years. Enough idiots believed we were being invaded by “terrorists” like al-Queda and led this nation into two wars – neither of which has garnered us any greater security from those forces out to get us. Instead it has eroded our security in more ways than one (think Patriot Act et al).

    While as a nation we could be invaded, is it in my best interests to fight in Georgia to save my homestead in Colorado? No, I don’t think so since my death gains neither me or my family any greater security. While this is “our” country, it really isn’t – anymore than it was thought to be the Native American’s country as we stole it in any way we could (including through invasion).

    I must agree with BF’s statement that if any invasion was politically motivated we would be simply trading one tyranny for another. Modern wars (and many, many before that) are politically inspired. They have no other value than one nation forcing it’s will upon another at the great cost of loss of human life.

    War has no other purpose than that.

    • To BF as well. Sorry, I have an open mind enough to believe that there are other intelligent life in the universe, that also may be more advanced than us. It seems my imagination got away, LOL 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        One can hope so. The human race doesn’t seem to be doing a very good job of things. 🙂

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I should say that with more clarity and specificity. As a race, through thousands of years we have been unable to find coexistence and non-violent resolution to our differences. Instead war to compel one to accept an others differences has been the norm. We, as a race, like to think we have evolved and progressed to being able to do so, yet war (and the threat of war) still exists as a tool to settle differences.

        Violence has always been, and probably always will be, used against humans by humans to get one individual, group or nation what it wants that it believes the other has and that they are entitled to.

        If, as a race, we are so smart why do we interact so stupidly?

        • If, as a race, we are so smart why do we interact so stupidly?

          Because earth is full of bubbleheads 🙂 We need more rockheads to destroy evil (which bye the way, will require war).

          In all seriousness, human’s aren’t a very smart race. Maybe a good old fashioned alien invasion could wake a few people up, 😆

          • plainlyspoken says:

            We need more rockheads to destroy evil (which bye the way, will require war).

            I don’t believe that G. It didn’t take war to destroy the evils of racial discrimination (and no, the civil war didn’t free the slaves and wasn’t about slavery), or denying women the right to vote, or eliminating child labor abuses, as examples. As a race we accomplished these things without wars, so one could reasonably expect we can solve our problems – in this day and age – without war.

            Wars did not stop the evils of terrorism, the spread of communism, the hatred of Jews, the tyranny of Iran-Korea-China as examples, so war doesn’t not mean the stopping of evil.

            Maybe a good old fashioned alien invasion could wake a few people up, 😆

            I guess we’d have to hope those aliens were smarter and more benign than our race.

            • Some good points. Racial discrimination is far from destroyed, it’s just more not reported as much because it’s black on white. This will NEVER end. Wars are evil acts, except when engaged due to self defense. Wars can also be non-violent if we choose 😉 It depends on how the war is waged. 🙂

        • Black Flag® says:

          Violence is nature.

          It is a proven methodology to initiate radical change. Look at an asteroid strike or volcano and you see “change”!

          Violence, as it is a part of nature, will always be a choice of humans who cannot achieve radical change by reasoning or articulation.

          But equally understand, we are getting better.

          #5. We’re Closing in on World Peace (Seriously)

          This one seems laughable — mankind has gone from fighting with swords, to muskets, to machine guns — right up to the modern era of poison gas and nukes that can murder every human on the planet in minutes. Mankind’s technological growth has been marked mainly by increasingly efficient ways to slaughter each other.

          Sure enough, the 20th century had to have been the most violent in human history. Two world wars, conflict in Southeast Asia, constant war in the Middle East — and those were just the ones that America was directly involved in. At the beginning of the 21st century, with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and rumblings of war with Syria, it seems like the world is a pack of rabid dogs about to pounce on a Snausage pinata.

          The Good News:

          Even with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the first decade of the 21st century saw the number of annual battle deaths at its lowest ever in history.

          Professor Joshua Goldstein put it best: “If the world feels like a more violent place than it actually is, that’s because there’s more information about wars — not more wars themselves.” Overall, we’re in the midst of an unheard of “long peace,” as no major powers have clashed since World War II, replacing them with smaller wars that historically would count as skirmishes — the U.S. lost 3,400 soldiers in Afghanistan, which is terrible, but during the American Civil War, 4,700 troops were killed on one side of one single battle. Here it is in graph form:

          OK, so maybe this is just a temporary breather after the bloodbath that was the previous century? Nope — it’s part of a long-term trend. As crazy as it seems to suggest it, the past couple of hundred years have been the most peaceful in world history. That’s including the world wars.

          (The numbers don’t lie: Property crime, theft, and burglary have also all been dropping since around 1993. The De-Textbook has more on why you’d be just as safe leaving your doors unlocked now as your grandparents were in “the good old days.”)

          Yes, in absolute numbers, more people died violently in the 20th century than in any other century — but that’s because there are so many more people now. The chances that a person living in the 20th century would die violently were about 3 percent. That’s a historically low number — it was five times higher in prehistoric societies. In tribal societies, war was a daily occurrence — just the process of everyone settling down into large-scale governments, even violent ones, was an improvement. If our hunter-gatherer ancestors could see us now, they’d be confounded by the complete lack of annual head smashing and face stabbing (if you ever unfreeze a caveman, show him our violent video games — he’ll go nuts for that shit).

          And it’s not just war, it’s all violent deaths — in 14th century England, some cities had a homicide rate as high as 110 per 100,000 citizens. London’s homicide rate in 2012 was just under 1 per 100,000. And we’ve previously talked about how violent crime is dropping to historic lows, even in the gun-crazy USA. No matter how you break it down, violence is slowly going out of style.

          #4. Teen Are Less Likely to Smoke, Drink, or Do Drugs Than Ever

          It feels like we’ve been steadily losing the drug war since the day drugs were invented. All we have to show for it are a pile of laughably ineffective prevention programs like D.A.R.E. and a grossly misguided attempt to imprison everyone who has ever sold or ingested narcotics. When will we ever learn that if the kids want to smoke the methamphetamine, they’re going to do it?*

          OK, smartass. Let’s just cover all the bases and say to not do it at all, regardless of method.

          The Good News:

          The National Institute on Drug Abuse has been surveying tens of thousands of high schoolers for almost four decades, and not only is drug use down, but almost every form of substance abuse is down.

          The big exception is marijuana; otherwise usage of illicit drugs by high school students has been steadily falling for seven years. And weed’s growing popularity is hardly surprising, as the drug inches closer and closer to legality and is generally viewed as not a big deal by pretty much everyone under the age of 65 without a law enforcement mustache. It’s a far cry from the bath-salts-induced zombie apocalypse that the media would have us believe is around the corner.

          And not only are the kids not injecting hardcore narcotics any more, they’re also consuming alcohol at record lows, as binge drinking continued its five-year decline right into 2012. Or maybe we just can’t tell, because those shiftless teenagers are just butt-chugging their booze. But probably not.

          Oh, and as of 2012, teen smoking was at its lowest rate in history.

          Holy shit, it couldn’t be that all of those shrill PSAs and after-school specials actually worked, could it? Actually, it just appears that, for today’s kids, their anti-drug is weed.

          #3. We’re Getting More Tolerant

          Yes, America is a country in which half a dozen states still celebrate Confederate History Month, dedicated to the memory of a government founded on the principle that God ordained one race of people to enslave another race of people. And yes, every few months a racially charged story will dominate headlines (see: Trayvon Martin), so maybe it’s not too surprising that nearly half the country believes race relations are getting worse. Hell, just read the YouTube comments under any video that has a black person in it. Or even better, don’t.

          The Good News:

          If compared to an ideal world free of prejudice, the current state of things is a shameful walrus orgy of a disaster. If compared to the actual world at any point in the past, things look pretty fucking good.

          For example, in 2013, 87 percent of Americans surveyed approved of interracial marriage. Just 50 years ago, over 90 percent of Americans disapproved. And while only 8 percent of U.S. marriages are between members of different races, that happens to be an all-time high. And, despite its reputation as a bastion of backward rednecks, Americans are more likely to accept neighbors of different races than are the citizens of most other countries.

          “Well that’s great, but what about gay marriage? That’s still illegal in most of the country.” That’s true, and opinion polls are split right at 50-50, depending on whose polling you trust. But while half the country opposing a person’s right to contractually chain him- or herself to another seems like bad news, you again have to see how far we’ve come — that 50 percent approval is up by over 20 percent from the mid-1990s alone. That’s a huge turnaround just since the Clinton years.

          This is evidently all because of the kids. Most measurable indicators suggest that the younger generations responsible for our future are increasingly tolerant and open-minded (perhaps it’s all the weed?). Maybe people can change. Or, more likely, old bigots aren’t immortal and are replaced with more tolerant infants every day. Either way, the arrow is pointing up.

          #2. Literacy Is at an All-Time High

          Seriously, who the hell reads anymore? Go break into a random teenager’s room and you won’t expect to see a single book, right up until the moment the SWAT team hauls you away. The kids these days always have their hands full with an iPhone, an iPad, or a game controller. Angry Birds and Candy Crush have replaced Tolstoy and Hemingway. However you want to say it, people don’t read anymore, because there’s an app for that, and it’s called movies, TV, and porn.

          The Good News:

          First, we need to point out that we live in the most literate world ever. Currently, about 99 percent of American adults can read and write. But that’s America — a better question would be how the rest of the world is doing. The answer is also pretty impressive. Take India, for example, and its 1.2 billion people. Fifty years ago, only 18 percent of them could have enjoyed the Twilight saga. Today, over 60 percent of the country can enjoy literature’s greatest love story. Worldwide as a whole, that figure is 84 percent.

          So what are people doing with these new reading powers? At least one survey suggests that nearly twice as many Americans are reading novels today compared to 60 years ago. Unlike the imaginary ideal 1950s living room, Mom and Pop weren’t seated ’round the fire exchanging copies of the New Yorker and ruminating on the works of Fitzgerald or Steinbeck. In reality, they were probably listening to the radio and talking about how great segregation is.

          Oh, and those kids with their noses buried in some Internet-capable gadget? They’re not just playing games and watching One Direction videos — they’re reading. Hell, how could a site like Cracked ever get this popular otherwise? Somebody’s reading this stuff, we’re sure of it. And you know what else they’re doing? Writing. At a mind-boggling rate. Posts on Facebook, Tumblr, message boards, Twitter — it all adds up to what they call the “new literacy.” Think about it — for most of recent history, written communication like that was reserved for the classroom. When our ancestors left school, only a tiny fraction ever wrote anything again besides the occasional letter, so English classes were thought of in much the same light as calculus classes today — a bunch of crap that most of us will never need again. Not so now.

          All of that practice — informal as it is — really adds up. And given the need for brevity in texts and on Twitter, many of us are almost capable of concisely articulating ourselves.

          #1. Worldwide, Poverty Is Dropping at a Shocking Rate

          For decades now, we’ve watched commercials that feature some retired actor stumbling through some impoverished village in some undisclosed location to make viewers feel bad enough to donate money. Considering that we’re mired in a worldwide recession, it’s a sensible question: “Does any of this shit even make a difference?”

          The Good News:

          Yes! Even though lately it seems like the whole world is in a race to the bottom, the poorest of the poor are actually climbing out of the financial shithole. From 1990 to 2012, the number of the world’s extreme poor was cut in fucking half. In case you were wondering, that would be the first significant global decline in extreme poverty.

          And these aren’t just statistical tricks here — when they calculate this, they’re not just counting income, they account for total living conditions — infrastructure, schools, access to clean water, everything. A billion people have that stuff for the first time. And what’s really encouraging is that this all happened three years ahead of the official estimates, which pegged 2015 as the soonest such a lofty goal could be achieved.

          So how did this happen? International aid helped, but the big jump has been in the increased participation of previously isolated countries in international trade.

          You know how people are always complaining about how “they’re shipping our jobs overseas!” Well, this is where they went — to people who previously had no jobs at all. And that boom that swept across China and India is expected to continue in places like Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, and Rwanda — all of the places you previously only heard about in the context of heart-breaking ads begging for donations. If things continue at this pace, countries like Nepal and Bangladesh would likely see extreme poverty shrink to near-nonexistent levels.

      • Black Flag® says:

        Perhaps, but there is lots to suggest otherwise.

        1. If we review our progress over the last, oh, 200 years – it has been staggering.
        If a man at the 1st century was transported to the 17th, he would not feel out of place. Some styles have changed, there are more people – but the culture and the “thinking” of the world would be about the same.

        But a man from the 18th century transported to today would be utterly lost. Almost everything is different.

        Given that degree of progress, what about the next 200 years, or 1,000 years?

        So, given that advanced civilizations accelerate … where are these “more advanced” galactic civilizations? We have total silence from out there….

        2. Even if there were more “advanced”, they are undoubtedly far behind us technically.
        Our solar system exists because past stars exploded. We are the consequence of old stars that went nova since all elements above hydrogen are created in the cores of the stars.

        But this only explains the elements existence up to lead.

        To create even more elements above lead required multiple – super nova.

        We had such a thing. Our “parents” were 7 stars that went nova together, all at once, their mutual blast wave created all the elements above lead – a series of supernova’s that is incredibly rare as to probably only occur once in our galaxy.

        So it is most very likely we are the only place in our galaxy we find gold, silver and most importantly….


        We might not be the most “advanced” species in the galaxy but we are most assuredly the only ones with nuclear weapons and advanced technology (since gold and other heavy elements are fundamental in creating advanced electronics, etc.) – and we are not afraid to use our terror weapons on ourselves, we will not at all fear using them on another species.

        Humanity probably strikes absolute fear in the “hearts” of other galactic civilizations 🙂

  13. Now that we can officially identify evil, can we now identify said evil and make plans to whoop evil’s ass?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      G, list 10 “evils” ongoing in our country currently (I’m interested in what you come up with) and in response I will list 10. We’ll see how it compares.

      • Government corruption
        The current welfare system
        Government intervention in foreign affairs, to include militarily
        Fiat currency
        The Main Stream Media
        Wall Street and the Stock Market
        To big to fail banks
        United Nations
        Political correctness
        Government Unions
        President Obama
        The Democrats
        The Republicans
        Government’s as a whole
        Al Gore
        Lying scientist’s

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Okay so you listed 22 (lets figure them numbered 1 – 22 to make my response easier 🙂 )

          1. ok for a general statement, but is ALL government corrupt? And what about corporate corruption?
          2. The current welfare system is evil – but then you’re implying some level of a welfare system would not be, yes?
          3, 9, 15 & 16 are all really one item – political groups.
          4. I am in agreement with as a general statement.
          5, 7 & 8. ok, really could be combined into economics, Not really ready to speak to that issue. Better economic minds than mine should weigh in.
          6. The MSM for the most part has evil in it, but is it ALL completely evil?
          10. GMO’s I’ll agree with. We have no idea of the long term health effects of them on humans. I am currently wondering how GMO’s may have effected my wife’s medical condition as well.
          11. I won’t agree, as that is too broad and generalized for me to find evil.
          12. Political Correctness – agreed. It hampers one’s right to freely express themselves, regardless of how abhorrent and evil some of that expression is/may be.
          13. Just government unions? The idea of unions isn’t evil IMHO, just how unions are used to the detriment of all.
          14. Mmmm……too shaky this one. Presidents are politicians, so judging their evilness by their position is too imprecise.
          17. Dishonesty – can’t/won’t disagree there.
          18. Subscribing to the anarchy (good kind) beliefs then? Otherwise specifics are needed.
          19. Yep
          20. Al Gore? How does he stand above & beyond as evil?
          21. Lying scientists – um, how do we know they are lying? I am a science dunce and can only say that they rush to their conclusions and it’s only years and years (decades even) later we find out – for sure – that they were wrong.
          22. Elections – generally useless (national level), but what about locally? Are those evil as well?

          Ok, I distilled your list down to 17 items. The order of my list means nothing other than the order they came to mind. I will not state any that you have stated above (or will try not to) – unless I am getting into a specific of one of yours.

          1. Opposition to gay marriage. By which I mean working to prevent it through law. I do not care whether gays marry since it has zero effect on my beliefs of what marriage is or my marriage to my wife.
          2. Controlling immigration.
          3. Discrimination
          4. War
          5. American Exceptionalism (we are not “superior”).
          6. Intolerance of diversity (think Muslims and mosques as an example)
          7. Dogmas (
          8. The Criminal Injustice System
          9. The interference of the rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness through political/cultural will.
          10. Force
          11. Some of the amendments to the US Constitution
          12. Compelled taxation (income tax as the primary example)
          13. Gun control
          14. Protectionism (

          and finally (for this posting):

          15. Bubbleheads 😉 (I’m kidding!!!!!)

          • Great start to a discussion. Let’s invite everyone and start with one line item. However, for the sake of my sanity, after today’s discourse, I’m taking a break from mind games and going to work on restoring a gun 🙂

          • Black Flag® says:

            1. ok for a general statement, but is ALL government corrupt?
            And what about corporate corruption?
            Corporations – as in “Limited Liability” entities created by government law, Yes

            2. The current welfare system is evil – but then you’re implying some level of a welfare system would not be, yes?
            Stealing money from working people to pay people not to work is evil (due to the theft) and dangerous as you create an incentive for people not to work.

    • Black Flag® says:

      What is evil?

  14. A real city here in Michigan. An awful lot of bets and money ride on this.

  15. In the discourse regarding the lack of principles, from Hayek, and reading this, think Anita, Gman, etc. who are often regarded as “Conservatives”…

    F.A. Hayek, in his 1960 essay “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” warned against the very lack of principles that Mr. Gerson celebrates as a shining feature…:

    “In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.

    He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules.

    Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule – not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist … he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.”

    • “In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.

      Absolutely false! I resent the insinuation that I somehow want government and their arbitrary power in any way. Get rid of all the bastards and let’s see what happens.

    • Sounds like Hayek doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and shame on you BF. I figured you’d give me more credit than that. He comes right out of the gate saying I have no principles then continues his critique from there. I agree with some of those words, sure. But like you, he overthinks it, mixes conservative and socialist together, and comes to a poor conclusion.

      • Hayek is absolutely correct.

        There is no fundamental difference between Conservatives and Socialists.

        Both believe violent force is necessary to manifest their vision of society.
        What that vision actually is may be different, but the means is identical

        Both believe in centralizing the control of society.
        Both believe government is the best tool to use.
        Both distrust free men.
        Both contradict themselves endlessly.

        • You can string whatever words together you want. Your cynicism kills me sometime. You have no faith that there ARE good people capable of running things. Of course you and I have a different view of how much ‘control’ is useful, and necessary. And of course we aren’t starting with a clean slate. Someone has to tell the takers that their time is up. Someone has to make a move to get 90 million jobs created. Someone has to get our troops home and stay home. Someone has to tell Pakistan that it’s not cool to nuke us. Someone has to go into DC with a machete to cut the budget (in half for starters). Someone has to limit government power. So let’s work in reality for now. “Distrust free men”???? That’s you.

          • There are good people.
            There is NO ONE capable of running another man’s life

            NO MAN no matter his intentions can “create” jobs other than those who make a business. No politician can create a thing whatsoever

            It was a man who put “troops” on foreign soil to do exactly what you demanded – change other men’s lives

            You want to “limit government” which only means you want government to do what you want it to do, and not what another person wants it to do, which is exactly what I said about you being the same as a Socialist. You want government to provide you with something you yourself seems unable to provide by forcing others to do it for you.

            No, I trust free men – you do not.
            I trust men, with their own goals and aspirations to act as they see fit to achieve them.

            You do not. You want a “great man” to manage your society.

            • Fine. I’m a socialist then. But I’m a realist in that I acknowledge we’re not starting from scratch.

              • You are no realist

                You are a STATIST.

                You cannot conceive that men already -for themselves- are completely capable.

                You do not trust such men. You believe that such men work against your interests so you demand men with guns to act upon such men to force them to work for your interests.

              • This is exactly my point and issues with your principles

                You pretend you have this principle of “freedom” – whatever you conceive that to be.

                You constantly argue against such freedom for others – you demand “controls” upon free men whilst your lips lie claiming “I trust free men!”.

                You are a contradiction, and yet pretend you are trying to solve the evil your own position manifests.

              • Ok I’m a statist too then. Let’s start from scratch and I’m with you all the way. In the meantime would you acknowledge that we’re not at scratch. From there, you’re the guy who says we can’t pull all the knives at once. I’ll start my four year term as a statist and end up an anarchist. Then I’ll go back to fishing. That’s where I’m different than a socialist.

              • Look, Mrs. Black or White Anita,

                It is not “starting from scratch”.
                It is fundamentally understanding what you are demanding

                You have declared we need a great man which is exactly what created the very huge problems you demand solutions that need a great man

                THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL.

                Arguing for less government is the right argument.

                Arguing for government to do something else is the wrong argument

                Do you not understand this difference?

              • Anita, Your not going to change Flag. Your not going to change government either. Both are fantasies. We NEED to start from scratch. The biggest Inhibitor of job creation is….government. The biggest inhibitor to a smaller government is….government. In the last century alone, governments have been responsible for more deaths of their own people than all of the wars in history combined. You should take a long look at the history of governments, as none have gone away without a bloody fight. Keep your powder dry 😉

  16. @Plainly, Government corruption/governments being evil. Yes, evil to it’s core. Government’s are merely one group trying to rule over others. All government’s end up corrupt at some point. The problem is that people think they need government, when they really don’t. That’s my pre coffee answer, LOl 🙂

    • Corporate corruption only occurs because of Government protection. Without the protection, all business’s would be at the whim of the free market.

  17. BF, what are you talking about? You’re not listening. I say I want a limited government, You say that is the right argument. Then you won’t let me do it? WTH?

    • Anita, you imply that you want to do all this by electing different people to government. That’s what BF is saying, you cannot fix problems by allowing the cause of the problem to continue.

      • So just let it all fall apart today? Real good idea. You want violence in the streets? Have at it. 🙄

        • See, that is exactly what I mean

          You do not trust free men

          You believe as soon as government “does nothing” everything falls apart!

        • Anita, your so sweet, but need to open your mind up to some realities of today. Government, can, and may actually do it, initiate riots in the streets of every major city in this country as easily as you type on your computer keyboard. It would only take one phonecall/fax/official letter to do this. This would lead in far more deaths than if we rid ourselves of government and slowly eliminated the issues that would lead to this. Look around at what they control.


            • “Protection services” – cops.

              Yet, people don’t feel protected.

              People buy private security services in the US at a dollar amount 3 times greater then the budget of all police services, local-State-Federal combined

    • You said this:
      “Someone has to make a move to get 90 million jobs created”

      I am listening. You have said this and similar things constantly

      Do you believe government should control who works where and what job?
      Do you believe government should manage “key” resources like water and energy?
      Do you believe government should dictate who “shacks up” with who?
      Do you believe government should dictate what you eat, breath or skin in or on your skin?

      • No

        • 1. So you believe in open borders with Mexico?
          2. Exactly. The market is capable of delivering all the vital and necessary food, oil, transportation, etc. but you believe it is incapable of providing water…..
          3. So you support same-sex marriage?
          4. So you support the end of the War on Drugs and eliminating drug laws?

          • 2. I mean just consider transportation.
            The market is capable of picking you up almost anywhere on earth and taking you to almost anywhere on earth within 24hrs for -even the worse case- a couple of thousand dollars and in most cases a few hundred bucks…. managing all the connections from hundreds of different service providers from taxi to airlines to different airlines to different taxi to different hotels to your home…

            Yet, you can’t believe it is capable of delivering a glass of water to your kitchen from the river across the street.

          • No
            Some control is necessary. I don’t want to drink mud. Don’t even go there either..No I don’t advocate poising the water.
            No..but I’m willing to compromise

            So lay it on me. I’m a contradictory bubblehead. There are 300 million points of view. It took years to get to this will take years to get away from it. PLEASE. deal with where we are now! I’d like to hire you in my administration to take over the de-brainwashing of the public.

            • Some control is necessary. I don’t want to drink mud. Don’t even go there either..No I don’t advocate poising the water.

              See, that’s what I mean.

              You believe you will drink mud, like you believe you will eat shit if you buy food from a grocery.

              Yet, you buy food from a grocery that isn’t shit. Strange, huh?

            • I guess you equally believe that men drank mud, and that water was delivered to people that was mud, until government stepped in.

              Yet, my grandfather had water delivered to his house weekly that wasn’t mud. No government dictated the water delivery. He lived until he was 99 years old.

              Strange huh?

              • NOPE. You better start giving me some credit too. I didn’t get us in this position by myself. Your THEORY is one I can live with, OK? You are the guy who says there are multiple answers to any problem, right? But you want it YOUR way. Strange, huh?

              • Anita,

                That is “bubblehead” thinking – that some who says “Let free men provide” is me “dictating a single solution”~!

                The market provides as many solutions to any problem as the consumer demands. Geezus, it provides over 1,000 different ways to clean your toilet – but to you “that is one way”!

              • It’s “not my way”

                You are the one dictating to me

                I am not dictating a damn thing. You get your water the way you want it.

                But that’s not what you demand.
                You demand that I must get it the way you do – with government You deny that the market is absolutely capable all by itself, and thus, you demand government do the job

                I make no such demand upon you.

            • Yet you believe government gives you good water.

              Yet, they have delivered posioned water to people many times – knowingly, and tried to hide that they did this, though they killed quite a few people who “trusted” the water.

              Yet, you have no problem that government posions your water with flouride and other “additives” to make the water “good for you”.

              To you, anything else is “mud”.

              Strange, huh?

            • So, yes, you are a contradictory bubblehead

            • Government put fluoride in water. Fluoride is a poison that is making people stupid. Imagine that? My water comes from deep in the earth and pumped to my house, pure natural spring water that’s free of poisons. Want to rethink the water issue?

              • Want to read my comment better..I said I do NOT ADVOCATE poising the water.

              • No, you advocate GOVERNMENT to poison your water.

              • The guy who lives in the penthouse has no access to a well. 🙄 🙄

              • Do you really believe the residents of a condo would drink mud if government didn’t supply the water?

              • I know you don’t, but you accept poison in your water that is provided by government and do nothing. You consume it, your kids consume it. And you seem to want more. 🙄

              • Do you really believe people would live in a condo if there was no water at all?

                Do you not understand that demand of the consumer creates the supply by the market?

                Do you not understand that people do not pay for mud as drinking water so the market doesn’t provide mud as drinking water?

              • Many people do not trust government water.

                So the market provided bottled water.
                No government demanded this supply, yet the buying of bottled water is the #1 bottled beverage world wide

                Shocking to you, I bet.

        • You believe government should control the roads and highways?
          You believe government should “protection” services?
          You believe government should manage the airlines?
          You believe government should control meat and food quality?
          You believe government should license people who cut hair? and doctors? and engineers?

        • Do you believe government should dictate how to build a car? a building? your couch? your pillow? your toilet?

          Do you believe government should dictate what clothes you wear? the fabric?

          Do you believe government should dictate the box lobsters are shipped in?

          Do you believe government should dictate what wood you can use to build or carve? What pet you should be able to keep? The size of your house? What plants you put on your property? The paint on your house?

        • If you answer anything but “no” to any of this, you absolutely do not trust free men

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I do not trust ALL free men nor ALL free women.

            In fact I trust NOBODY who has not EARNED my trust.

            • But that’s not true.

              You get on an airplane, yet you don’t know dick-all about who the pilot is.

              You buy food from the grocery, yet you don’t know dick-all about who grew the food.

              You buy gas for your car, yet you don’t know dick-all about who made it.

              You do all of that, and more…. you utterly do trust other people absolutely whom you know absolutely nothing about.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                This is where you are wrong. I have JUDGED the airline and grocery to provide service with “low” risk based on their performance.

                I do not simply fly on nor buy food from someone who is just STARTING to provide such services. Not without doing some research first.

                Trust is a scale from 0 to 10. Not just 0 or 10.

                I do not have to meet the people individually to JUDGE whether they are trustworthy.

                For example, I DO NOT trust Concrete Finishers, based on prior experience with many. Now I could find a good one worthy of full trust, but they all start out below the 5 level with me. To get above that they have to earn it directly as opposed to general reputation.

              • JAC,

                Sorry, nope, that is not what you did at all.

                When you moved into the town or area you now live, you didn’t start a process of evaluation.

                Nor do you do that when you went traveling. You stopped at a motel you did not know, ate a restaurant you did not know, dealt with thousands of different people you did not know – all without any thought of “on a scale of 0 to 10…”

                You hold a basic and valid assumption of trust on all of these people, that in their own self-interest they will provide a valued good or service.

  18. Anita, I give you credit for seeing many of the problems that exist. What is your solution to fixing the problems?

  19. I’m done guys. You’re both taking everything I say to extremes. That shuts down the conversation. I need a break, need to get my snow shovel moving and take out some frustration. Later.

    • No, Anita, it is not “extremes”

      See, that is where you confound your own position.

      Remember what I said about how all people work within their ideology?

      “Ideology, act, then rationalize”

      You want your freedom, but cannot trust others with it.

      So you rationalize this contradiction. “I don’t want government to do this thing, but by God, it better do that thing that I WANT” so you make up utter nonsense about mud

      Yet, when I or Gman point out how ridiculous such a claim actually is, you rationalize again by saying “Damn you guys, you take things to the extreme

      You do not review your own massive contradiction – instead you blame us in showing it to you

    • Anita,

      Again, the rationalization.

      So where Gman and I argue for the market place and no government, you take it to the extreme and declare “I will get mud!” — it is you who goes to the extreme since no where does the market provide “mud” in place of “water”

      But we are the “extremists” right?
      You are not, arguing that the market provides “mud” instead of a valued good, though a billion examples of the market providing valued goods is extreme…. and you are the reasonable one, right?

  20. Just A Citizen says:


    Anita is no STATIST.

    She is a statist…………and only so by necessity.

    You need to recognize when people agree with MOST of what you are saying but also realize that we can’t just jump from here to there. The STATIST has built a system to prevent such a jump. Even if the system suddenly collapsed.

    So that is the dilemma Anita is trying to resolve. It is not helping her, or others to resolve this by simply telling them they are the SAME as those who built this system.

    The Anarchist vision is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, not in the short run and not in the long run. At least not as long as humans continue to increase their presence on this planet.

    So within the fundamental of FREEDOM, what can be done to REDUCE the STATIST impact on Free Men? What can be done to move away from STATIST towards statist and maybe even a “smaller” statist (can’t make font smaller).

    Water is a good example. Our system of water allocation has evolved over hundreds of years. It is NOT OWNED by anyone, so the Free Market Theory cannot be applied in its totality.

    • JAC

      No, she is a Statist.

      True, she wants to LIMIT where the State interferes, but that is a selective Statist.

      “I don’t want it take my freedom here, but over there it can take those people’s freedom just fine”

      It is a wholly different conversation to say “How do we begin to eliminate the State” from “I want it here but not there”.

    • JAC

      The #1 way to begin to eliminate the State is to absolutely stop saying “We need a law…”

      40,000 new laws appeared in the USA on Jan. 1…..

      • As 2013 comes to a close, we turn our attention to 2014 and the nearly 40,000 new laws written by state legislatures set to take effect in the United States next year

        • Just A Citizen says:


          There does need to “be a law”. You see, it takes a “law” to repeal the “existing law”.

          Odd thing isn’t it!

          • Sorry old friend, that’s not correct.

            You LEGISLATE a repeal of a LAW.
            It is not creating a new law.

            “Law in the sense of enforced rules of conduct is undoubtedly coeval with society; only the observance of common rules makes the peaceful existence of individuals in society possible. …

            Such rules might in a sense not be known and still have to be discovered, because from ‘knowing how’ to act, or from being able to recognize that the acts of another did or did not conform to accepted practices, it is still a long way to being able to state such rules in words.

            But while it might be generally recognized that the discovery and statement of what the accepted rules were (or the articulation of rules that would be approved when acted upon) was a task requiring special wisdom, nobody yet conceived of law as something which men could make at will.

            It is no accident that we still use the same word ‘law’ for the invariable rules which govern nature and for the rules which govern men’s conduct. They were both conceived at first as something existing independently of human will. … they were regarded as eternal truths that man could try to discover but which he could not alter.

            To modern man, on the other hand, the belief that all law governing human action is the product of legislation appears so obvious that the contention that law is older than law-making has almost the character of a paradox.

            Yet there can be no doubt that law existed for ages before it occurred to man that he could make or alter it. … A ‘legislator’ might endeavor to purge the law of supposed corruptions, or to restore it to its pristine purity, but it was not thought that he could make new law.

            The historians of law are agreed that in this respect all the famous early ‘law-givers’, from Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi to Solon, Lykurgus and the authors of the Roman Twelve Tables, did not intend to create new law but merely to state what law was and had always been.”

            — F. A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I think Hayek’s historical view of law is inaccurate. He is implying the first laws were summary of known “natural laws” but they were also “man made laws”.

              But that aside, “legislation” in the USA is also “law” within the USA.

              It takes a “law” to repeal “law” or to create “new law”, in the USA.

              Even a resolution passed by the City Council is considered LAW.

              Now I will let Buck the Wala decide if I am wrong on this point. Not Hayek.

  21. What happens when an 11 year old kid challenges lead guitarist to a play off at a rock concert? Watch (some foul language)

  22. Even our wildlife is not immune to the evil’s of government.

  23. What happened? Did Black Flag run everybody outta here 😉

%d bloggers like this: