Idea: A certifying organisation for #FreeSpeech forums, kind of like the FSF.
Free speech for matters of physical reality, I mean. Not necessarily for moral or taste matters.
Random thought: if you deny human rights, that's basically the same as denying morality. They're basically the same thing.
"Stealing is wrong" = "everyone has the right to private property"
"Starvation is wrong" = "everyone has the right to food and water"
Et cetera.
I'm ambivalent on gun ownership.
On the one hand, it can be used to overthrow a tyrannical government.
On the other, there's no guarantee that the new government won't be tyrannical in a different way.
https://iep.utm.edu/punishme/
>Although utilitarians have traditionally focused on these three ways in which punishment can reduce crime, there are other ways in which a punishment can affect the balance of happiness over unhappiness. For example, whether or not a given offender is punished will affect how the society views the governmental institution that is charged with responding to violations of the law. The degree to which they believe this institution is functioning justly will clearly affect their happiness.
This sort of thing is what makes me doubt utilitarianism. It implies that government propaganda and censorship are good if they make people happy with the government.
Maybe a different form of utilitarianism would be better. Maybe one that maximises freedom for the greatest number instead of happiness or pleasure.
@xianc78 I have a question about seasteading. What's stopping the governance of these floating islands from corrupting like on land? What's stopping states that form on the oceans from invading other states and forming empires?
Is the idea just to delay the inevitable?
Just got banned from the @GrapheneOS Matrix chatrooms for, squints, siding with Rossmann and/or posting the video when someone asked what he said.
They are such piece-of-shit jannies that try to squash any and all criticism.