Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Ján Ďaďo
Ján's interests
View all
Ján's posts

Post has shared content
Co bychom dodali. Ottocopy umí psát. Nyní jeho pohled na školství staré čtvrt tisíciletí,jeho syna ve škole a naději

Post has attachment
Upsidedown. As you would expect.

Post has attachment
Government A: egg washing required by law - to prevent deseases
Government B: egg washing prevented by law - to prevent deseases

That sounds about right. Like anything mandated.

Post has shared content
Warning... ⚠ Highly Explicit Content ahead:

Rights, being assertions of truth which have been logically proven (demonstrated) to be in accordance with that which is observably true and correct, are all derived from the self-evident truth (axiom) that from the moment you exist until you no longer exist as we know it, you do, in actual fact, have exclusive control of the totality of all that is you as a singular subject of experience (and action), and that this is true of all individuals on earth.

The closest exceptions we know of to this truth exist only with shared body (one aspect or manifestation of self, not totality of self) and not as subjects of experience (conjoined twins, and mother to developing individual-they are connected to one degree or another but do not share one experience and instead represent two distinct subjects of experience).

This is irrefutable among all humans. No one can usurp this claim. In other words, as of right now, no one can bump you out of that which is you and insert their own consciousness into your body, or hop in and join you etc, thereby giving them any claim to control of you. There is no claim that can stand against yours. This, by definition, makes yours the rightful claim, or "right." This is the logical conclusion based on physical evidence, providing the strongest or highest "ownership" (right to exclusive control) claim in the known universe, being completely fixed and unseverable. We call this conclusion 'self-ownership'.

Because we know that this is in accordance with that which is observably true and correct, we can reason soundly from this logical foundation, which is how we determine (along with supporting physical evidence where available) which is the rightful claim among competing or conflicting claims when and where they arise in human interaction.

Generally speaking, because of the nature of a claim (in the strictest sense it's just a statement), proof has nothing to do with them until or unless the claim is contested. In this way, it can be argued that the primary individual rights established (like rightful claim to body, life, liberty, and property, which are all derived from rightful claim to self) are the socionomic equivalent of mathematical theorems. They've already been firmly established as general propositions not axiomatic themselves but proved by a chain of reasoning, having been contested often and much, and thus searched out and soundly reasoned through. And thus we use them to solve the more complex, situational, specific conflicts that arise as we encounter them.

As you can see, they have nothing to do with preferences or values. They are not 'ought' (opinion) statements, as many fallaciously assert, but rather are quite clearly 'is' (fact) statements. The only 'ought' about them is the same 'ought' about math: you 'ought' not ignore it, you 'ought' not try to build something important without it, etc. thought I meant the other kind of explicit, didn't you? Admit it. Get your mind out of the gutter! ;) I was asked to explain/prove/demonstrate self ownership as a first principle/logical foundation. So now you know.


Post has attachment
Think of it: there might be no getting out of the country without subjecting yourself to this process. It's a digital Berlin Wall. This is what it means to put “security” ahead of freedom: you get neither.

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
A thought worth considering in any freedom vs. security debate: "Those who are willing to surrender their freedom for security have always demanded that if they give up their full freedom it should also be taken from those not prepared to do so." -- Friedrich Hayek

Post has shared content

Post has shared content
Statist: The problem with taxes isn't that they exist. It's how that money is spent.

Me: False. The problem isn't how stolen money is spent. It's that violation of consent is not okay. To justify violation of consent in the form of compulsory payments to government (aka taxation) is to justify rape, assault and battery, stalking, fraud, and all other forms of initiatory coercion. Because the only thing that separates these things from lovemaking, a boxing match, a relationship, and sharing is consent--the power of self-determination in human interaction. It is what separates virtue from depravity.

It doesn't matter how much you want something, how beneficial you think it will be for them or others, or how much you disagree with their refusal to give consent, initiatory coercion is inexcusable and unconscionable. Period.

Post has shared content
Wait while more posts are being loaded