Foundational Rights

[Amaterasu Solar]

While I agree that technically the three Laws of Ethics subsume sovereignty, without those Laws, society could not function, as psychopaths did as They choose, and pandemonium would result.  The positive thing here, and why I do not consider the Laws as truly being oppressive to sovereignty, is that most of Us live within these Laws naturally.  We all know that hurting or killing the flesh of anOther, without fully informed consent, is wrong.  We know that taking or damaging things, without fully informed consent, that do not belong to Us alone is wrong.  We know it's wrong to defraud Others.  And in a system that is based on social currency, accounted for in Our hearts and minds, to be sure, breaking these Laws will cost LOTS of social currency.

Well, that right there is one of the major differences between our philosophies - I believe "society" to be a vastly overrated thing, something that was invented by psychopaths to control others with. It's why I live in the woods and generally avoid society as much as I can. If I ever decide I need someone else to tell me what to do or how to think, I'll give them a permission slip to do so.

Well, I see many who socialize and work together, live together, and otherwise enjoy the company of Others.  Just because You have a society does NOT equate to rulers...  Ethical anarchy has no rulers, and only three rules.

I will just assume that, in your envisioned society, some other person trying to damage me constitutes "fully informed consent" for me to clean their clock, and we could agree on that point. Another point you raise, taking or damaging things that don't belong to us alone, raises another question. In this society you envision, how is "ownership" to be determined? How do I know objectively that something belongs to me alone, so that I might move it to a corner or burn it to the ground if I so choose?

Absolutely!



Ownership is actually less of an issue...  When One can have what One needs and most of what One wants, Few will have motive to take something anOther lays claim to.  And ownership is pretty intuitive.  "I found this on the beach 5 years ago and I love it!"  Pretty clear whose it is.  The ownership of land One does not live on is moot.  With nothing to collect as "rent," and with plenty of room for all of Us...  Who needs to "own" that apartment building where One does not live?  I doubt You will have issues knowing what is Yours to do with as You choose.

As far as "social currency" goes, if I shun society as I do, then I've not got very much social currency, and therefore not much to lose. How am I supposed to pay up to society if I'm not part of their currency system?

LOL!  There is NO expectation that any One has to "to pay up to society."  You can live as a hermit, and no One will know Your name or even of You, if You work it right.  BUT...  People who care, and who a problem is affecting, will move to solve for problems, enjoying the thanks and such They get for helping solve for a problem.  People will experiment and share results for the fame and such They get.  People will create art and music and crafts and plays and movies and...  For the appreciation and lauds...  Just because You have no currency does not mean You are "poor."  You can live as richly as You choose.

What We have today is Some being given authority over Others.  In what I propose, We ALL have authority over only Those who choose to behave unEthically, but no One is "in charge," making rules for Others to follow.  Anarchy means no rulers, NOT no rules.  There are three We need to maintain a healthy society.

This is another point I have a problem with - how can "we ALL" have authority over anyone else without a collective? I, individually, have any authority I care to exercise, and you, individually, have any authority you care to exercise. When "we ALL" have authority, that is pretty much the definition of a collective, is it not? How does it differ from what we have now?

Do You grasp stigmergy?  It was discovered initially in insects, but it applies across all societies in nature.  It is a system of governance within all societies, based on the exchange of information between autonomous Individuals.  All of life has infolded seed parameters - in insects, it may be the drone parameters, or the nursery parameters, etc.  In higher life forms the seed parameters may include being submissive to the alpha, or to be an alpha...  But in all of these the individual chooses behaviors based on the data it receives.

For example, if an ant is out foraging for food and encounters some number of others out doing the same in a certain length of time, it will head back to the colony to see if other work needs to be done, establishing that there is enough out looking for meals.

This stigmergy is what I base the system on.  We each have the authority to arrest One who chooses unEthical behavior.  But no other authority over Others.  And as I have said, with no poverty, no desperation, no useless ELiters, all equal, there is scant motive to choose to break the three Laws.

In any human society, there are strong folk, and there are weak folk. Inevitably, because of human nature, some of those strong folk will take from the weaker victim sort of folk. Since they are not strong, they cannot defend themselves, and someone else will have to step in and defend them if they are to be defended at all. Who does that in your envisioned society? Anyone? If that greedy strong person is not a threat to me, but only a threat to his weak neighbor, from whence do I derive the right to step in? Or do we just let the greedy strong eat the weak, so long as they are not threatening us personally?

While it is true that there are weaker Ones and stronger Ones, what would be the motive to take from anyOne?  Order the same on the web and it's Yours.  And if I take from You, You report it as a problem on the website, Others come to help sort the problem out, and They/You may arrest Me if the evidence shows I did indeed take from You.  Same is true for any breach of Ethics.  What happens to Me is anything Ethics chosen.  And I will gain negative social currency, to boot.  Disdain, lost friendships, and such.

And You "derive the right to step in" because You have a foundational right to arrest anyOne who is choosing/has chosen unEthical behavior.  It matters not whether that behavior was directed at You...  

The Laws of Ethics are well defined.  We can't "redefine" these - like...  "Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of another...unless You're super pissed."  This is not to say that in Self defense One cannot kill anOther bent on hurting/killing Oneself.

Who defined those laws of Ethics? I didn't get to vote on them - does that mean they don't apply to me, since I did not give explicit, informed consent?

I am not sure who it was who "defined" them.  That was done in ancient times.  Though not called the "Laws of Ethics," nonetheless, it is unEthical to break them.  They just have been called the three Laws.  And they are the foundational rules a healthy society, stigmergically functioning, needs to function.  It's not a matter of "voting" on them, so much as they have been self-evident and were verbalized.

It is not a "collective" but a stigmergic system of autonomous Individuals that will emerge.  I loathe the whole idea of "collective."

As do I. I spent a few years fighting fairly vigorously against Collectives, only to watch my own nation get turned into one - which is why I dropped out of society to begin with. The problem with autonomous individuals is that we are all... autonomous. We feel no compelling need to adhere to any Laws, or social currency, ethical or otherwise, and as individuals, we all think differently. We have different ideas of how our lives ought to be run, and some have decidedly inimical (to others) ideas. I'm just not grasping how your envisioned society differs from (idealized) Communism.

I fully disagree.  I have a deep caring for Others.  All My friends do to.  The idea of breaking of the Laws of Ethics sickens Me - and My friends.  I don't know ANYONE personally, who would willfully hurt or kill the flesh of another.  Nor would We take or damage Others' stuff without permission.  Nor would We defraud.  Maybe YOU don't feel any compelling need to "adhere," but I feel a compelling respect for Others such that I would never break these Laws.

And once the society has the abundance of Our planet flowing to all of Us, We can live Our lives as We choose as long as We are not breaking the three Laws.  That's one hell of a lot of leeway.  We will see what I call social superconductance.  None of Us will have to spend any time with Ones We don't like.  With the ability to travel as We please, the ability to find Others We resonate with - be it on religious, ideological, industry of interest, sexual, whatever - and co-create things, Our interactions will tend towards positive.  Or We can find a cave and hunker down away from Others.  We are the captains of Our own lives.  With leisure and industry of interest.

"What Human does not deserve leisure and industry of interest, if (S)He chooses all behavior Ethically?"

Communism, always and without fail, in every place it has ever been tried, devolves into Oligarchy. That happens because the inimical sort of Strong folk will without fail prey on the Weak folk, and there is no one to stop them. "Society says..." you know?

About that communism thing...  

As for Ethics...  They are clearly and concisely defined in the three Laws.  So in this jungle, it's ok if someOne is killing People for fun (being a psychopath) as long as They are not trying to kill You?

Yes. It's none of my business if I'm not directly involved, and none of my family (blood or extended) is, either. I spent way too much time fighting for other folks "freedom", only to have them give it up anyhow, and turn their backs on us (by "us" I mean myself and much better men than me, some of whom did not live nearly long enough to see what had become of what they fought for) and what they had been given, trample it under foot... turning silk purses into sows ears somehow... so they are no longer my problem.

Nowadays, I would not piss in their mouths if their teeth were on fire. They can take care of their own problems - after all, they created 'em.
.

Well, You have no obligation to get involved.  It's not like anything compulsory to You is going on.  But I tell You what, sir, I care very deeply, and I would use My right of arrest to help anOther out.  And My friends...?  They would too.  We all have quite strong Betterment Ethics, and caring hearts.  An' it harm no One, do what Thou wilt.