this thread not about my preferences. this thread about morality. it is written in the opening post is it not? so basic. remember comprehension class in early primary school? 90%+ of students were dumb as animal scum. they could not interpret basic words in a sentence. i was taken out of that class (and basic maths) and put in an advanced class. thus we have the current human condition being so low. this thread is about boosting morality.
why is morality important? according to natural law, which is observable, immutable workings of the universe, there is a law of freedom: as aggregate morality increase, freedom increases. as aggregate immorality increases, slavery and suffering increases.
moral: what is right. right: (as already stated) moral entitlement to possess or do something. moral means right. possess and do are verbs, actions. therefore, right is any action that does initiate harm.
BUT, not all dictionary definitions are correct. moral: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. one's opinion is either in line with or out of line with natural law. one's opinion does not determine truth, it simply determines whether the person will benefit from being in lone with the universe, or whether the lerson will suffer due to being out of line. "a person's standards" should be "the standards of the universe according to natural law".
moral means "does not initiate harm" to govern others is to steal their freewill. therefore, all government is immoral. what is not immoral is voluntaryism.
one cattle wants to: graze on a farmer's land. be protected by the farmer's border fence. be protected from creatures by the farmer's hunters dressed in blue costume and a badge. use the farmer's shelter called subsidized housing. eat the farmer's hay. have the farmer's doctor come to visit when sick with free medicine.
how can the farmer and the cattle do it IMmorally? immoral means incorrect, wrong. the farmer can force the cattle to give the farmer as much milk as he deems by writing it on a piece of paper. sometimes the farmer writes 40% of the cattles milk will be taken, sometimes the farmer decides that only 30% of the milk will be taxed. sometime the farmer even gives the cattle a subsidy, a tax refund! in any case, the cattle has no say in the amount taken, there is no mutual agreement, no adjustment to other terms and conditions. the cattle can also act immorally. seeing that the farmer uses resources to feed, shelter, and medicate the cattle, the cattle realises that the more resources that the farmer has then maybe the cattle will be better off. so now, when the greedy cattle sees another cattle outside of the fence, the cattle is mooing and mooing loudy, calling the farmer's goons to get the other cow on the free side of the fence and bring the other cow into the pen so that the farmer can get it's milk. the cattle didn't want the other cow to be free, it wants all other cows to have their milk taken by the farmer.
how can the farmer and the cattle do it (much more) MORALLY? on an individual basis, the farmer and the cattle can come together to agree specific terms. if the farmer writes a new rule, there is now a negotiation as per any normal contract. if the cattle sees a cow in the other side of the fence roaming around, it realises that the other cow is free to do as it pleases as long as it does not initiate harm. the other free cow can see that the cattle in the pen has voluntarily agreed a deal with the farmer and accepts that the cattle wants to be inside the fence.
