A universal right to self. Get the trans / gay community, the raw milkers, the anti vaccers, the druggies and the prochoice crowd all on the same page.

The government should make no law demanding or preventing the alteration of any and all, organs protrusions or growths of organic matter attached to and constituting the body of a sentient person not under the court directed care of another.

Agree with you on IP and I agree it seems to be sadly a minority opinion.

I think inheritance of money is bad. It seems to be some agreed upon good, you should leave money and assets to your children. But WTF? This drives inequality, generational wealth accumulates and so does generational poverty. I think the world would be better if it was more use it or lose it, and you couldn’t pass it on like that. Or not so much at least.

Monogamy is very often an extremely toxic factor in many relationships.

I think individualism has gone too far. We pander too much to each person’s individual rights, and not each person’s individual responsibilities. I’m not talking about human rights here, I’m not talking about labour rights or any of the genuinely important stuff.

I’m talking about the self important experiences of the individual. The idea that someone has the right to believe whatever they want without responsibility to those around them. The most obvious answer is anti-vaxxers that spread literal lies. Whatever about vaccine hesitancy when there is legitimate peer reviewed medical potential for harm, there are levels of hesitancy. But when it goes to the point of fabricating data and spreading lies that will ultimately only cause harm to society, then in that case I’m ok with those people having any free speech rights voided, including full legal culpability for the harm it causes, akin to medical terrorism.

Where established data shows that people are contributing harm to society, contradicting scientifically proven data, and a person deliberately continues to spread misinformation when they are informed that they are causing harm, then they clearly do not care for the protection of the community, they should have forego societal protections for themselves, rights to free speech, rights to own property, and where necessary incarceration. If you’re in a position of power/authority or have specific training in the field, then you should face exponentially greater legal consequences for this deliberate harm.

Many people may agree with the general principles of this sentiment but as a society we are not ready to have that conversation, because the first person to be locked up would trigger a mass protest not widespread agreement. All because we have permitted individualism to far overpower the importance of collectivism. Rights should not be absolute they should always be coupled to responsibilities. Even if that responsibility is simply not to cause deliberate harm to others.

And the idea that someone’s beliefs about reality are somehow important to uphold. That the person above believes they are not doing harm, despite being told otherwise, that this idea should hold any weight in court is wrong. People should be informed of their ignorance and measurable reality is the only true reality that should be taken into account . Just like ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of reality should not be a defence.

If a person is spreading misinformation that causes harm, they should be served a legal notice that outlines that they have been “judged to have been causing harm to society by spreading information that is adjudicated as false and harmful by an sanctioned and independently operated committee, whose ruling has been further agreed upon by a plurality of specialist training bodies in the relevant field. The only entities who contradict this societally important and data derived ruling are those that mean harm to society or those without the relevant knowledge base to make any informed statements on the matter. As of this point you will be treated as the former now that you have been served notice that the information you are spreading is factually incorrect and harmful. If you continue to spread this misinformation you sacrifice a portion or all of your rights afforded to you by this society. Your assets can be seized, you may be incarcerated, and your access to any and all communication with other humans may be partially or entirely withheld. This is a measure to combat information terrorism.”

Civil liberties are a privilege not an inalienable right.

You might think this sounds dystopian but it’s my answer to your question. Obviously it needs baked in failsafes to stop a small few individuals from corrupting it for authoritatian abuse. But just because something could be hypothetically abused doesn’t make it a bad idea. You just need to insulate against the abuse.

I totally agree. Intellectual property is a capitalist myth created only for the purpose of beating other people away from progress.

Any civilized society would believe in the free commerce of ideas.

I don’t know if it’s a moral per se, but I think nobody should be able to decline being an organ donor. It is an absolute and unforgivable waste to let bodies rot/burn when they could save someone. There is no reason, no good reason, to not be an organ donor. There is no good reason to be able, even after you’re dead, to just let people needlessly die.

And religious reasons are even more moronic. What God, if you truly believe he’s good and righteous and loving, would want you to let someone else die if you could save them? Why is your meat sack more important than somebody’s life? Don’t most people believe the soul leaves the body? It’s just meat.

I’ve had countless arguments about this, but nobody has ever been able to give me a compelling reason as to why letting someone die to protect a corpse is right or just.

A free society means other people are entitled to make a living even if I don’t like the way they think. I won’t “vote with my wallet” because that’s like saying a lynch mob is “voting with rope”.

Broadly speaking, I’m a Pacifist and believe any kind of military confrontation or military aid is bad public policy. The idea of collateral damage - civilian casualties taken in pursuit of military objectives - is fully immoral and should be broadly rejected. Military resources should be tasked first and foremost as disaster relief and recovery with the primary mission being the preservation of human life, rather than offensive missions to defeat or deter an opposition military.

Military reprisals (starting with the MAD policy and going down to retributive strikes in border disputes) are monstrous and should be ended. Military prisons should be closed and POWs immediately repatriated. Embargos, particularly those aimed at economically vulnerable nations like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea, serve no useful purpose and should be lifted immediately. And the only offensive military action should be reserved for securing evacuation routes for refugees, with the bulk of resources dedicated to extending shelter and both immediate and long term relief to the refugees we accrue through these policies.

HRT should be available to trans kids. it seems I’m increasingly alone in this belief, depressingly, looking at the political situation around the world.

I believe antinatalism is a dire mistake, and the highest thing someone can aspire to be is a parent

I treat all people with religious beliefs as members of a dormant terrorist cell.

They could be your nice neighbor with whom you can interact normally on a day-to-day basis, but in the end they all have compromised against logic and, in the right conditions, that is a terrible liability.

Summary death to bicycle thieves, and anyone else actively wrecking the world. I am averse to the death penalty in most cases, but bicycle thieves are actively wrecking their communities. Someone rides a bike because they:

• Have no other option
• Are trying to improve their health
• Are living car-free or car-lite
• Are trying to enjoy the locals with active transportation OR
• Are complying with a court-ordered driving suspension

Stealing bicycles undermines these goals and poisons the community.

Of course, we could easily scale this up to, say, almost all CEOs of megacorporations.

Open borders. I strongly believe in open borders as a moral imperative. Human beings have been migrating for survival, resources, and exploration for over 20,000 years. The concept of nation-states imposing constraints on movement is a modern invention that doesn’t align with the inherent human need for freedom of mobility. People in the southwestern states of the US with Mexican roots will tell you “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us.”

This is a bit meta, but I believe morality is objective. Actions have objective moral worth; epistemological disagreements about how we know the moral value of an action are irrelevant to the objectivity of goodness/badness itself.