In the 60s, Weizenbaum wrote a program called ELIZA which received much attention and praise and became a sort of jumping-off point for modern artificial intelligence. He soon became concerned about the theoretical uses for AI, ranging from psychological disingenuity in human relations to exponentially efficientized military machines capable of mass death. He also eventually became aware of the broader philosophical and religious consequences of the evolution of AI, such as the blurring of the boundaries between man and machine, the phasing out of biological humanity, and the future possibilities of eternal life.

Weizenbaum spent much of the remainder of his life attempting to counterbalance the Pandora’s box he felt he had opened, and to broadcast his apprehensions about “the other side” of AI. He also grew frustrated with the tendency of many in the computer science field to turn a blind eye to ethical questions in their quest for knowledge and achievement. One of Weizenbaum’s statements from the film puts this in perspective:

There are major military projects to create robot soldiers. Then you have this artificial human who can calculate that he should shoot that person over there with that strange uniform. That means we computer scientists don’t have the right to yell at our politicians because they lead us into war. For without our help it wouldn’t be possible.

If we didn’t help, war would look much different today. It may even be impossible in a sense. At least to the extent we see it today.

I came away with a profound respect for Weizenbaum and his ability to objectively analyze his own achievements and take a step back at his own risk.

I also found a statement from the Vatican to be interesting:

God gave man the ability to think and be creative. If he can build humanoid robots, then he should use this gift.

It seems a carte blanche approval of “if you can dream it, you can build it”. But the Vatican should remember mankind’s great capacity for destruction and evil, too. The statement seems to be saying “anything goes”, but there is a moral component to our actions. Building humanoid robots in broad terms may be morally ambivalent… but what are those robots intended for?

At the end of the day, I am left with a number of questions. At what point does man with his prostheses, Pacemakers, medicines, and artificial hearts, become a biorobot? Is it when the mind is replaced with a computer containing previous memories on disk, and where is the soul in all this? Where is the line between natural extension of life via health and medicine versus artificially bioengineered extension of life? Who is at fault when a sentient, autonomous robot accidentally (or purposely) kills someone – the robot itself, or its owner, or its creator? And when that day comes, how will we respond to a race of superhuman autonomous robots which no longer wishes to be subject to humans? These questions will probably have to be addressed in my lifetime.

The post ethicnology appeared first on Liberty for the Masses.

there are two ways to engage in capitalism: honestly or dishonestly. honest capitalists seek to be as useful to others as they can, and in return, they expect fair compensation. dishonest capitalists, on the other hand, seek to capitalize on the honesty, integrity, and hard work of others, without providing anything in return, for their own benefit or gratification.

those who seek to engage in capitalism through voluntary and mutually beneficial interaction are the honest and strong. honest capitalists are virtuous and generate moral and pragmatic progress in societies.

those, however, who seek to engage in capitalism through the state apparatus (and, therefore, through the barrel of a gun) are simply dishonest and weak. dishonest capitalists leverage the power of numbers to steal from honest capitalists.

all workers are capitalist entrepreneurs. you sell your services, or your labor, or your capital – for the highest wage (or value) you can gather. you are, simply as a matter of existence, in a perpetual capitalist relationship with others and the world.

bottomfeeders, too, are capitalist entrepreneurs. they too seek to better their own existence. they simply seek to do so via the route of dishonesty.

so, to those who claim to endorse state force under the guise of humanitarianism, let us make one thing clear; you are not noble. your poorly veiled attempted robberies are not just. you are a simple thief, and you will reap what you sow.

The post anti-capitalists = walking contradictions appeared first on Liberty for the Masses.

You’re being deceived, every single time.

Rights don’t come from a document, or from government, or from people, or from society. “Rights” which are “granted” to you by some other worldly entity or source are no rights at all, but rather, privileges. This is not debatable, it is not an opinion – it is definitively true. Rights come from God, or from nature (from first principles) – the only rights which exist are natural rights.

You have a full and unalienable natural right to own yourself. To deny such would be utterly foolish; if you do NOT own yourself, then someone else must own you; and for someone else to own you, they must first own themselves! The principle of self-ownership is the only logical and non-contradictory theory of bodily rights; your body is fully your own property.

Property rights flow from self-ownership in much the same way. You have a full and unalienable natural right to own your property, that is to say, the fruits of your own labor – or – that which you have voluntarily and contractually traded for the fruits of your own labor. Again, to deny this is foolish, since the only way to reject my property rights is to claim them for yourself or others; but to claim them for yourself or others, you would first have to accept the principle of property rights!

So, where does freedom of speech come from? Property rights! Who has a higher claim to your tongue than you?
Where does freedom of religion come from? Property rights! Who has a higher claim to your intellect (or, perhaps lack thereof!) than you?
Where does freedom of the press come from? Property rights! Who has a higher claim to your pen, and the output of your own hand, than you?
And where does freedom of ownership (for instance, firearms OR vegetation ["drugs"]) come from? Property rights! Who has a higher claim to your property than you?

Referring to your natural (or God-given) rights as “Constitutional rights” is dangerous. If your right to free speech, or to keep and bear arms, or to be secure in your property, came from the Constitution, then such a “right” could just as easily be taken by the Constitution. But rights transcend documents, governments, people, and society. They come from God, from nature, and from first principles. As such, they can (and often are) violated by such worldly entities; but they cannot, ever, be taken away.

So the next time you hear talk about “Constitutional rights”, be sure to straighten out the story. Rights may be recognized by the Constitution… but Constitutional rights don’t exist.

The post Constitutional rights don’t exist appeared first on Liberty for the Masses.

Placid protagonist
Archic antagonist
Dual disposition

Tribal tango
Solo showdown
Battle

The billionth flicker
Points in longer nights
Til death by distant cousin

Why plot course?
I will burn forever
Reason in due time, not now

A spark unto creation or
A spark unto destruction
Determine future present past

Glowing bright this moment
How could I know
I’m just an ember fading fast

Embers fading fast
Lost chances to be light
Now I see

Lone flares fray
Futile flashes in the pan
When we could be a blaze

Fires fight forever
But in the end
That’s all just ashes so

I will be the warmth.

The post fading fast appeared first on Liberty for the Masses.

But, disturbingly, it is the large faction of the so-called “Christian Right” who are constantly most eager for war and - despite their often libertarian rhetoric – Statism. It seemed most self-proclaimed Christians couldn’t wait for war in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and now the modern trend is what I like to call “Iran haters”.

Leading the Iran warmongery charge are people like Daniel Pipes, whom I have a bone to pick with, and whom is actually the inspiration for this writing. Pipes is constantly chanting the “Iran is about to get the bomb” meme which has been on replay for decades at this point. Mind you, this same man who, in a November 4 article titled “Why I Am Voting Republican”, stated, “I am voting the straight Republican ticket and urge readers to do likewise.” He does not even urge readers to research their candidates, but rather to mindlessly vote straight party line. In my district, FL-01, this meant urging readers to vote for a politician who has voted for over $5 trillion in debt, the Super committee, NDAA, PATRIOT Act, TSA, Planned Parenthood, No Child Left Behind, continued billions in U.N. funding, and that’s just for starters. I imagine many or most other “Republican” districts are similar. Mr. Pipes manifests a disturbing lack of both political and spiritual discernment. People like Daniel Pipes have no credibility in my book.

Not to say that they don’t get what they want. In the 2012 election, an overwhelming 99% of the voting public gave their stamp of approval to status quo candidates who simply supported that which they claimed to oppose – more war, more debt, and across the board, less freedom.

The U.S. has about 200,000 military personnel deployed at about 1,000 bases in more than 150 countries around the world. It is actively using or has recently used non-covert force in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Uganda, and Jordan, and uses covert force in countless other sovereign countries. It accounts for almost half of the world military budget, spending well more than the next 10 countries combined. And yet almost half of U.S. voters supported the “conservative” candidate who wanted to increase military spending and usage?

The United States of America is not a nation “at” war, it is a nation of war.

The post Christian warmongery appeared first on Liberty for the Masses.

As a candidate for U.S. House in 2012, I cannot tell you how many times I heard this statement. It must number in the hundreds.

Though seemingly innocuous enough, it is loaded with illogical assumptions. And what it does not assume, it achieves in total irrationality.

Let us cut through the cognitive dissonance. Let reason be our guide.

NOTE: For the purpose of this article, let us refer to candidate “Romney” as “LOTE” (Lesser Of Two Evils), candidate “Obama” as “GOTE” (Greater Of Two Evils), and our third party candidate as “NOTE” (Neither Of Two Evils). We will address this theme in greater detail as well.

logical fallacies

a contradiction at face value

Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”

For example, a vote for a third party candidate – say, Mickey Mouse – cannot also be a vote for a candidate – say, GOTE – who is not Mickey Mouse. This is because ONE vote cannot be both FOR and NOT FOR any ONE candidate.

In a literal sense, the statement in question is a blatant contradiction on its face. This alone should be enough to stop reasonably intelligent people from mindlessly regurgitating such nonsense ever again, but let us continue.

simple math

When one votes FOR a candidate, that candidate and that candidate alone receives one tally in his or her column. No other candidate receives any tally whatsoever. So, in a race which is perceived to have two “mainstream” candidates, a vote for a third party candidate has, essentially, an absolute zero effect on the outcome between those two mainstream candidates. It does not “help” or “hurt’ either or those two candidates in any way. This alone should also be enough to stop reasonably intelligent people from mindlessly regurgitating such nonsense ever again, but let us continue.

a non-vote for LOTE is a vote for GOTE

What the statement really says is “Anyone who doesn’t vote, or votes for anyone but my candidate, votes for my candidate’s main opponent.” Seen in this light, the statement is incredibly pompous. It is also quite obviously unreasonable. Are those citizens who simply do not participate in national politics – for example, the Amish, or the disaffected, or even those who simply do not care – are they, de facto, voting for GOTE? Of course not. They simply are not voting.

Not to mention the inherent hypocrisy. Is a vote for LOTE more “valid” than a vote for NOTE? Of course not. Then doesn’t a vote for LOTE “harm” NOTE equally as much as a vote for NOTE “harms” LOTE? Does it not “help” GOTE in the same way? Following the statement’s logic, does not a vote for LOTE equate to a vote for GOTE equally as much as a vote for NOTE is, supposedly, a vote for GOTE?

assumptions

LOTE is preferred over GOTE

“Assumption Fallacy #1″ is that, if not for the third party candidate, the vote would go for LOTE. This is, however, far from accurate. I personally know many people who, if they had not voted for NOTE in 2012, would have voted for GOTE. Many others simply would not have voted for either LOTE or GOTE. I myself am in the latter group.

LOTE really is “less evil” than GOTE

Consider 2012′s LOTE and GOTE. Both were bankrolled (that is to say, owned) by the top international banks. Considering both rhetoric and record, both candidates support status quo Federal Reserve policies, bailouts, more government economic intervention, endless war, more debt, boundless state power, abridgement of civil liberties, socialized healthcare to varying degrees, and that’s just for starters. They disagreed on minutia. Was one candidate “less evil” than the other? Debatable. Was it substantially so as to warrant minor compromising on personal principles to vote for either? Not in the slightest.

LOTE would be better “all-around” than GOTE

Consider the 2008 election. If LOTE had won, America would still be on the same declining path it is today. Perhaps at a slightly lesser speed – this is debatable – but the same path nonetheless. However, consider the results of GOTE’s victory. The anti-GOTE electorate was absolutely electrified into action. This crowd would probably otherwise have passively accepted the same or similar policies had “their” candidate won. The same can be said for 2012.

Consider also that GOTE can only terrorize us for 4 more years. LOTE could have done so for 8!

Lastly… sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. This time around, GOTE is a lame duck President before he is even re-inaugurated. There’s a lot to be said for government ineptitude. It is leaps and bounds better than government malevolence.

pragmatism

Let us look at real-world results. Since this year’s election, a misleading statistic has floated around implying that Ron Paul voters in 4 swing states impacted the outcome of the election, because the Ron Paul primary votes in those states outweighed the Presidential Election difference. While this is a fun talking point, it is incorrect. Firstly, a portion of those voters no doubt did in fact vote for LOTE. Second, the voting demographic in the general election was vastly different than that of the primary, so much so as to make such conjectures entirely useless.

The fact is… “LOTE” would have still lost, even with NOTE votes! So in the final equation, what did NOTE votes accomplish? They showed that about 1% (of those who voted) simply do not consent.

summation

Consider this: what if the third party candidate who had “no chance” was Thomas Jefferson? Christians, what if it was Christ? Further, what if this candidate truly appeared to have “no chance” to win? Would you cave on your principles and vote for Stalin so Hitler didn’t win? Would you go the extra step and try to convince everyone you know to vote for Stalin as well? Or, instead, would you expend that energy spreading the message of Thomas Jefferson, or Jesus Christ – knowing full well that your candidate may have a high probability of failure – but knowing that your candidate actually espouses your principles?

What it comes down to is this: Republicans need to take responsibility for their actions instead of finding scapegoats. In response to, arguably, the worst U.S. President of all time, Republicans nominated, arguably, the worst Presidential candidate of all time. They did so in the face of the most passionate political crowd in modern history – the “Ron Paul Revolution” – and they then all but officially excommunicated said group. And after all that, they expected everyone to vote for their terrible, status quo candidate? Sometimes movie quotes say it best:

How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

- V For Vendetta

The ”A vote for NOTE is a vote for GOTE!” lie has been sold by the powers-that-be forever, hand-in-hand with its sister lie, “This is the most important election in history!” The true intent is to keep you on the two-party reservation; to preserve the status quo system. And as long as this persists, it will continue to be effective.

Last but not least, the statement is nothing but an insult to the principled minority who refuse to compromise their principles for more lies. At least we have progressed past “voting third party is a wasted vote”, right?

Let us put this perpetual Orwellian doublespeak propaganda to rest, once and for all. And let us react to those who continue to parrot said for what they are: shamelessly unable (or willing) to comprehend the simplest of reason.

The post MYTH: voting third party is voting for the “Greater Of Two Evils” appeared first on Liberty for the Masses.