There's an old k'arash joke that goes, "What special powers do you get if you have half vampire blood, half human?" The answer is, "Half the strength, all of the damnation." Cut and dried: the curse's inherent immorality is complete at the corpuscle, ergo there's no need for further contemplation. For most other things, nuance of some level abounds. A trite statement, that, but the crippling infections of relativism and the crude naïveté of libertarianism risk prompting vengeful counterreactions that make nuance and consideration seem to be the enemy. All part of the plan, of course--long live the king, Liberté égalité fraternité, and so forth--for excessive blowbacks perpetuate the cycle, guaranteeing future stupidities that will give later generations something to feel overly righteous about.
We cannot make others learn faster than they will. For ourselves, though, honing the nuance is useful. Let us now, then, turn to a few of the overreactionary flux points.
Universal Basic Income
This issue cuts to the level of responsibility that the individual owes to anything else, whether matter or energy, individual humans or groups of humans. Myopic Bastiatism, which is to say, economic libertardianism, relies for its existence upon the solipsistic idiocies underpinning all libertarianism, namely, the blindness to the impossibility of sole existence. Aside from a hypothetical singular yet universal self-generating force, such as lightspring or a non-anthropomorphic God, no one, including libertarians, is freed from the responsibilities of existence. Those who have already committed suicide upon first contemplating the issue have won the petty portion of the argument; those still here have conceded the flux, ergo the just applicability of the term "libertardian" to one who accepts billions of years of star-seeding and thousands of years of genetic, social, and ancestral guidance toward the creation of their life, then subsequently tries to be the First Ever to renegotiate a contract leaving her or himself owing nothing From This Point Forward.
A Universal Basic Income, whether concept or reality, is an expression of some form of entitlement owed one by some sub-part existence, usually (in our current case) groups of humans. Whether admittance to public areas, emergency medical care only, geriatric care only, food, shelter, age-based assistance, or UBI, the concept of an entitlement is invoked. In this case, let's use "UBI" to refer to an income sufficient to comfortably house, feed, shelter, and medicate a human for the duration of its therefore unnatural life (in the sense that exposing it as an infant is either equally, or more, "natural").
The moral arguments against UBI, or of any entitlements whatsoever, are based around the necessity of pillaging some to provision others. So, too, arise practical arguments, for the provision of any entitlement requires a pillaging agency and a provisioning agency, each replete with inefficiency and graft, and each instilled with its own organic desire to grow at the expense of both its own mission and the mission of the overall structure of which it is part (the bureaucratic problem), and staffed by members who are instilled with their own organic desires to grow at the expense of their own organization's mission and the mission of the overall structure of which the organization is part (the managerial problem and the employee problem).
These moral and pragmatic wrongnesses of an entitlement are powerful arguments, yet inadequate, for they presuppose the freestanding entity, unconnected to other entities and systems, whose very standalone existence immoralizes interfering with them. The failure of the latter arguments against interference lies in their inability to recognize the duties incumbent upon the non-self-generating entity, for the human, as distinct from the theoretical god, has been created by other humans, and by other systems, and by evolutionary process, and so forth. Not only created in the planning stages of embryo, but nurtured through fetal growth and, in the current Terran case, infancy, by a guardian(s) who could not sustain the infant, let alone the guardian(s) themselves, if not for an eternal succession of guardians and interwoven systems. There exists some obligation, for the non-suicidally-averted life of the conscious being who possesses the power of contemplating the idea.
The moral argument for not having signed the contract of existence--the preferred Judaic argument for Gentile teenagers of the 1960s and 1970s, if you will; that Freudian and Dylanish "I didn't ask to be born"--is negated by willfully breathing our air, which is part of the same system of interdependent duties and responsibilities as one's childhood guardians. Past a certain point of cognitive power, one has signed the contract; one is gorging oneself at the buffet every minute, inhabiting the meat-shield that could otherwise be put to use by the conformist system. The ability to swiftly research painless suicide dismisses all prior arguments that might have been made about it not being fair to have to suffer in order to break the contract into which one didn't enter; here again, networked computers negate the fulsome protestations of the manchildren, for the sample product can be easily discarded with no harm done--unless you actually are committed to the versal system.
Moral entitlement, as well as pragmatic, also enters the picture of calculating the acceptability of a UBI. The duty one owes to one's parents and guardians, to one's ancestors, to one's species, to one's planet, to one's galaxy, et cetera, is counterbalanced by an inheritance: the Earth's offshoots, to some degree, have been created by processes of life that charge the created ones with resources. As with all aspects of the discussion of entitlements, a varying inheritance applies. Mara's inhabitants, though children of Sol, do not deserve the fruit of Terra's soil to the degree to which Terra's inhabitants do. On a planetary scale, Terra's hammock-fillers deserve the fruit less than Terra's agriculturalists, and yet the hammock-filling humans deserve it more than Terra's whale sharks, however atomically small either of the latter groups' shares might be in comparison to the agriculturalists'.
The libertardian argument of "no connections" fails, but the genetic, racial argument, is more profound. The national socialist recognizes the usufruct inheritance of members of the nation--a much mathematically stronger connection than the tenuous cascade of nihilism, also known as relativism, which places genetically modified food, automatic pistols, vaccines and television as the equal inheritance of wheel-less hut-builders. The practical implications of national socialism are ultimately beneficial to all nations, so long as a planetary socialism is part of the mix. This is not to suggest U.N. wealth transfers, but rather, the permittance of a hierarchy of practical and moral responsibilities more accurately reflecting the one's (the "individual's") inborn duties: family to locality to nation to genus to planet to star, and so forth, with "self" and lightspring (or some other real or metaphorical god) eventually finding a place at the fore--in recognition of interrelationships between all parts of the hierarchy, but also, as a stopgap preventing the moral martyring of everyone everywhere on principle, and the development of hero-sacrifice mythology that starts out nobly but ultimately cascades to all successors and beneficiaries, destroying the people the heroine flattered herself she was trying to save.
The brokenness of nihilism is becoming more generally obvious, for the internal principles of the disease--the cowardly rejection of beauty and existence manifesting as an unwillingness to recognize or appreciate anything--fail as the selfish gluttony of arrogant guilt starts providing the faux-omnipotent less of a thrill. When we turn against nihilism, though--when we cast off a communism, or a Marxism, or a cultural relativism, or any of that--we must be keenly aware that beauty, individual achievement, and ancestral heritage, are only truly possible as part of an integrate system which recognizes--though not nearly to the billionth part of an occupation regime's anticharitable invasion-fostering--that the same principle holds true, too, in the realm of Terra, and then to a lesser extent in the realm of Sol. The funding of obese sows' violent broods, let alone the latter's and former's obesities, is a wrong, but the Terran inheritance of some part of the planet is its own moral imperative. This UBI might not take the shape of a warehouse of pinto beans every quarter--rather it might consist of harvesting forces offering removal to the trans-120 IQ minority each generation, while allowing the others to go their own way inside the walls--but the moral aspect of some well-meaning inheritance is an integral part of the planetary duty/inheritance, the respect for which will provide vast bounties over the millennia ahead, and the neglect of which will have a staggeringly high opportunity cost.
The arguments for entitlement are the arguments against inheritance: it de-motivates innovation and labor, it creates assholes, it encourages the breeding of irresponsible wastes with increasingly dysgenic effects. Yet the arguments for inheritance--or for private property--which capitalists use are, similarly, applied to entitlements: it motivates innovation and labor for the parent, it creates honor and legacy, it encourages the breeding of dutiful broods with increasingly eugenic effects. The anti-entitlement, pro-inheritance capitalists base their decision on the freedom of choice, e.g., the parent should have the power to disinherit the child, but she should also have the power to pass everything to the child, if she so wishes. So too, then, can the nation decide to leave a legacy for its progeny, without therefore ruining them all through the entitlement of inheritance. Yet, how does the nation decide? And then we're back in the problem of government, which must not be democracy, because to the capitalist, democracy leads to the culling of the rich in temporary service to the poor, who then collapse. Not so a true nation not infected by Jenome. The nation that makes itself responsible for promoting its own interests--and here we must pause again, to remind the 2016 Terran that "nation" properly means not "government," but a genetically linked group; a "people"--realizes that the moral foundation upon which its own philosophy rests, its hierarchy, includes other levels, among them mollusks and Africans. The Gates Foundation is exploitative and dangerous for both whites and blacks, and evinces sickness and disgust; yet, a healthy European nation, on a Terra that has solved the problems of 2016 Terra, owes something, however small, to Terra, ergo in part to Africa, and to mollusks. What that responsibility entails, to lions or to Bantu, is a matter for another time. Yet that time will come. An overreaction to our current infection now may be inevitable on the part of many, but it is the curse and the blessing of those with foresight to see what will benefit the largest and the smallest the most on a longer scale. As some would say, the day of the rope must not be the year, the century, or the eternity of the rope. We see beyond victory as the bat swings beyond the surface of the ball, for it is that follow-through which makes possible even the lower forms of success.
To sum up this section: we've concluded that entitlement is moral, diminishing morally and practically as diminish various forms of proximity, but vanishing not even for goldfish. In our next section, we'll turn to homosexuality.