Sunday 28 April 2013

We are on facebook now

The internet has been very much shaped by the social networks in the past decade. It is imperative for any movement, community or even business to make use of the amplification that these cyber tools now provide to the publishers. As so, we gladly announce you that we have lauched our Leviathan Slain Facebook page. Please Like us, follow us, subscribe... whatever! We have some awesome contents for you, freedom lover!

http://www.facebook.com/leviathanslain

Thursday 25 April 2013

Morality or Efficiency - The Values for a Free Society

In most (even to say all) political arguments there are inherent elements to the debate that are disguised or even ignored, that would simplify objectively the discussion. Since all we say, ultimately, has strong ideological content (in other words, all we express are ideologies), that is derived from principles/axioms/premises and through reason and evidence we integrate them into conclusions on the ways we must guide our action.
That said, and the radical question arises "What is the root of ideology?" - well… Ideas. And what is the root of ideas? - More and more ideas. The intelectual self will inexorably deconstruct the root of all his ideas to morality (by deduction from moral principles) or by efficiency (by inducting from the wanted results to the root axioms). This could be examplified by the following situation:
If you were asked, in a dichotomy sense question, what would you prefer as the guiding/primary "value" of your society, would it be efficiency or morality? In other words, would you sacrifice morality for the sake of effiency, or would you give away efficiency for the sake of morality? - This is the root question of all socio-political thought, the argument between Individualism or Collectivism. Obviously, you can and should consider the short/long run consequences derived from your choice above.
As an individualist, I can clearly see the efficiency coming in the long run by preserving a solid moral basis, and not the other way around. This can also be seen as the question between the means and the ends. Since efficiency is obviouly the ends, where does morality stand (morally, do the ends justify the means)?
If it wasn't for the constant presence of institucionalized coercion and violence, I wouldn't be writing this post. I'm inspired by what I call the biological argument for anarchy (i.e. a free, voluntary society) - in nature, if you compare a monoculture, like a corn field, (higher short term effiency and productivity and a very low resilience - great risk of a systemic crisis) with a diverse culture, like a garden, (great resilience but lesser efficiency in the short term) you will (hopefully) conclude that the high risk of systemic crisis is going to cause unintended, destructive and depressive consequences eventually (e.g. the constant resource to cultural, military and economic warfare, the boom and bust and fiat inflated currencies cycles that enpoverishes millions and are the price to pay for state sovereignty).
It will, sooner or later, be the collapse of efficiency without morality, Nature's spontaneous order will take care of it, since it is an antithesis to the natural order. Then, to idealize the free society, it's imperative to start with morality, in order to achieve peace, coexistence and prosperity. To build this morality, we need universal axioms, like non-agression and self-ownership in order that our own freedom ends where others start.

Tuesday 2 April 2013

The Ethics of Friendship

“What is a friend? A single soul dwelling in two bodies.” 
― Aristotle

In the VIII and IX books of Nicomachean ethics , Aristotle develops  a rational and concise case, concerning the several types of friendships and their ethical classification.  Being a treaty on ethics,this requires discussion, friendship is needed, therefore it is a virtue  or it implies virtue. One of the pillars of his assertion is that "No one would choose to live without friends, even if he had all the riches in the world , we can think that the rich and those who occupy the most important places and hold power are the ones that need friends the most; indeed, what would be the usefulness  of such prosperity without the opportunity to do  good, since it manifests itself in it's  most praiseworthy form when regarding friends?".

The disciple  of Plato created three different categories  for friendships, each of them is formed according to the qualities that  serve for their very own formation.  So, we have friendship according to pleasure, friendship  according to utility, and   friendship according to virtue, or, the perfect friendship. 


"Wishing to be friends is quick work, but friendship is a slow ripening fruit." 
— Aristotle


The first two, friendships derived from pleasure or utility, are ephemeral, a passing phenomenon that eventually shatters. This happens because one of the parties has ceased to be the same, since this particular friendship was only the means to access a  certain end.

We  face these friendships in several  stages of our life,  if  we remember the mundane school time we had, it is easy to identify which were and were not the friendships that we  established according to pleasure, the so called spirituous people, full  of life, are very often the ones that maintain a broad circle of friendships, not because of their virtue but because of their joviality, this happens not because of their character  or what they are within themselves, but of the amount of pleasure that such people can induce in others. Summing it up, these  people compensate their lack of qualities with an excess of joviality.


"A friend to all is a friend to none."
— Aristotle


Friendships according to utility are also from a similar nature. We  can identify them at  workplaces, imagining the relations between the workers of an office, or when we have a team or a group that works towards a common goal. In this specific case, these  people are focused not on a selfless friendship but they maintain their friendship because it will turn into something prosperous for each one of them, their desires and whims are ultimately selfish.

Friendships according to virtue, or perfect  friendships, are, as Aristotle says "perfect in the sense of the duration and every other aspect, and in it one receives, in a similar or different way, the same that one gives."

Aristotle also draws the line between "good men" and "bad men",  only good men are able to possess perfect or virtuous friendships,even if they can also have friendships by utility or pleasure, whereas bad men cannot aspire to perfect friendships and are confined to friendships by utility or pleasure,  the correspondence between Ethics and Friendship becomes clear.

"For Aristotle, friendship in its highest form has a political or civic dimension. We love our friends not just because we like each other or are useful to each other, but because we share the same values and ideals for our society, and come together to advance those ideals." 
— Jules Evans (Philosophy for Life)


Monday 1 April 2013

From Portugal with love

Começo por saudar todos os portugueses e lusófonos que lêem este blog, e em geral as mentes curiosas que se interessam pelas escolas do voluntarismo, do objectivismo, do libertarismo, do anarco-capitalismo ou de qualquer outra ideologia ética, política, social ou económica dentro deste espectro.

Nesta publicação gostava de referir duas situações que me ajudarão a transmitir o princípio que eu acho basilar para o funcionamento duma sociedade livre e civilizada. O primeiro destes conceitos é a praxe. Como estudante universitário contacto inevitavelmente com actividades académicas e obviamente a praxe não é excepção. No que toca à minha opinião, a praxe é algo por que nutro uma grande estima e respeito, embora a considere uma (perdoem-me o vernáculo) merda colectivista, opressiva, autoritária e paternalista. E mesmo tendo estes atributos todos que eu desgosto categoricamente, é uma instituição voluntária, i.e. todos os seus membros estão lá sem estarem coagidos, ou seja, por consentimento mútuo dos novos membros e dos já pertencentes à hierarquia vigente.

Por outro lado temos a actividade tributária fiscal, também conhecida por impostos, da qual nutro a mesma opinião que o conceito referido anteriormente: uma merda colectivista, opressiva, autoritária e paternalista. Contudo, esta actividade não é de todo voluntária. A pergunta moral impõe-se sempre: se eu decidir, de minha justiça, que não quero contribuir para o bolo fiscal e consequentemente não poder usufruir dos benefícios inerentes à redistribuição centralizada, posso? Naturalmente que sim, mas esta opção possui um gigantesco asterisco, um "senão". Se eu decidir como propus anteriormente, os agentes fiscais e jurídicos irão rotular a minha livre e voluntária decisão de evasão fiscal, punida com coima, expropriação ou até cadeia. Isto é, terão "legitimidade" de utilizar violência contra alguém que violou o contrato social, algo que nunca me comprometi, mas magicamente com o meu nascimento nesta social democracia que dá pelo nome de Portugal, toma imaculada validade.

A diferença e o princípio chave está na liberdade para escolher, na acção voluntária, contudo como em muitas situações do nosso quotidiano temos "liberdade" para escolher, mas somente a(s) decisão(ões) que uma entidade centralizada define como acertada(s).

Best wishes,
Tiago Águia de Moura