Life could be so simple!
The only rule would be:
1.) Do not steal and do not hurt someone.
2.) Strong property rights.
Every other rule derives from that base!
p.s.: Did i miss something?
Discussion
You missed quite a lot 😂
what could that be
its all in the derived ruleset
which i didnt mention yet
What about the rights of those who don’t own property?
House wives,
Parents,
Children,
Neighbours,
Community,
Etc
Also, the definition of the words you used such as “stealing” and “harm”. I have a degree in Islamic law, so forgive me for being ‘picky’ lol 😂
But there’s a lot that goes into society building that is outside the scope of “property ownership”. To limit it to those things almost seems to tie rights to those who have and exclude those who don’t.
There’s an Arab saying “The weak is the leader of the journey”. Meaning we have to factor in the needs of others who don’t have, not just those who do
I was about to reply to Tuvok that society also needs charity, which I don't define in the modern sense of extraction and tax breaks, but then started thinking - if charity is enshrined in a "base layer" of ethics, then it gets used by people who don't actually need any help to violate people's property.
I think that goes on a second layer of ethics, and must never violate the base layer. People will still be people and will help when they can.
yes thats the point
even with the simplest of rules
you still got bad and good people
its just the case that you dont enslave
the people with nonsense rules
What makes rules “nonsense”?
Also, I’ve wanted to ask you for a while, who, in your view is better?
1) Kirk
2) Picard
3) Sisco
4) Jainway?
😂
Well Jainway is perfect so maybe this should be more of personal preference 😅
Hahahaha
I found her to be uber annoying at the start, but the show (and her) matured nicely. I still prefer Picard with sisco in a solid second. The whole emissary thing ruined part of his story.
I almost forgot about Michael Burnham…I think we should ignore that part of the Franchise lol 😂
Would you define the wealth that’s extracted from a person, by the state of need be, for their family like their wives or children to be theft?
dont know if i get you right,
but you should take care of your kid
how you would take care for you wive
would depend on the marriage contract
i guess there are cases where you could be overcharged
lol 😂
In Islam, property rights are preserved, even more so than in the west (in my view) but ownership is not absolute. People around you have rights over your wealth also. Your wife, while she is your wife, has claim for food, shelter and clothing, regardless of how good or bad a wife is. While the contract is still valid (and also a short duration after divorce) she has those rights. Children likewise have similar rights and claim over your wealth. Likewise parents who may be financially challenged and other close family relatives. And finally the poor in your community have some rights.
It’s not that “because you own it, you have 100% absolute control and ownership”. You don’t, not under any system, other than the barbaric outbacks of an apocalyptic scene like mad max lol 😂.
Once a woman came to the prophet Muhammad and said “my husband is greedy and doesn’t give me what I need?” And he replied “take your needs when you need it”. It doesn’t mean she can take everything whenever she wants, but if she has basic needs that are not being provided for, she doesn’t have to get permission to take it, even if asking permission is better for a loving coexistence together. Likewise a child doesn’t need to beg for food in order to open the fridge to eat.
Maybe the most that can be said is he can determine which of his wealth they can take, but that doesn’t take away from the fact they have rights over it. Or a portion of it.
Even the first rule, you could narrow to just “do not steal”, as hurting someone is essentially “robbing” them of a healthy strong body.
Yeah it’s bit of a stretch, but I like it.
I can’t claim credit for it though, I think I read it from the a book somewhere. The moral of the story was, any rule can be broken down to theft.
Lying is the theft of knowledge from someone, murder is the theft of life from someone… and naturally theft is just good old theft 😂
Wow, you brought back some memories for me.
Love the 1st rule 🥰🥰
👌🫶🫵 thoughts
Stop speaking lies
It can slove a lot of problems 🤘
If statists do not agree with your simple definition of Natural Law, here is an excellent explanation by Judge Napolitano:
The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny (ES subs)
good speech
Completely concur with you 😍😍
Solid! Add voluntary exchange and sound money, and you’ve basically got the blueprint for a free society, Bitcoin fits perfectly here.
2 laws? But think What would happen to the Euro parliament with their infinite amount of laws and regulations, all those burocrats with nothing to do and on the streets
cant they find a new job
1) is enough tbh
Until Bitcoin, how do you do the second one with out violating the 1st one?
what do you mean?
i dont get it exactly
for property rights you have to trust institutions?
is that what you mean?
3.) Create value for the world and those around you
Agree but I would ad one more:
Care for others as you would wish to be cared for.
Principis Iustitia Haec Sunt
NAEMINEM LAEDERE
HONESTE VIVERE
CUIUS SUIUS TRIBUERE
AnarchoCapitalism
Many of the replies in this thread are a testament to why we can't have nice things. You only need one rule; the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Abide, focus on your craft and spiral out 🌀