The Pirate Code

[Eduardo Blomar 1679]

I, Eduardo Blomar, would like to discuss an issue I have that concerns me regarding The Pirate Code:



First, a pirate is the sole authority over their own life, and may not be crimped into service.

Second, duties are created by consent. Claims of obligation without consent are invalid.

Third, no pirate, nor crew, however commissioned, may initiate hostilities against any other.

Fourth, a pirate may, without permission or rank, defend themselves against any hostile party.

Fifth, no captain, nor crew can possess rights exceeding or violating those of an individual pirate.



Everything is not only acceptable, it is most desirable as an agreement between Pirates as to interaction - with one exception.  A Captain that does his or her Due Diligence in Life and acquires their own ship may find it necessary to EMPLOY others, for which their efficacy is determined by The Captain alone.  If found lacking, The Captain may request that a crewman or crewwoman leave his or her ship; but no crew can force a Captain to surrender their property under Number Three above.



Where do ye stand?

[Doug]

Umm...

I am gonna go with, Dirty Dancing. Shoot, no...not that one. The one where he is dead, playing with clay n stuff. Ghost! Is that it? I can never remember.

[Doug]

Ok...so no joking.



Can you clarify what you are asking or saying?



I know where I stand. But I don't know if that helps you.

[Eduardo Blomar 1679]

I contend that a Captain has the right to give the old heave-ho to any Crewman, and no Crewman has the right to remove a Captain from his boat. Number five of the Code does not account for this exception, and I am bringing this discrepancy up in the forum here before I put out a call for others to sail with me.



Sincerely,



Eduardo Blomar 1679



Captain

[Doug]

I see. Well, worry not, about this discrepancy. I don't see any problem. Simply tell your crew this and see how many want to set sail.



Happy sailing

Doug

[Woodchuck Pirate]

I contend that a Captain has the right to give the old heave-ho to any Crewman, and no Crewman has the right to remove a Captain from his boat. Number five of the Code does not account for this exception, and I am bringing this discrepancy up in the forum here before I put out a call for others to sail with me.



Sincerely,



Eduardo Blomar 1679



Captain

Sir,



The code is based in Aristotelian Philosophy, and in this case expresses the non-aggression principle through creative license modeling the concept "voluntaryism".  I only maintain voluntary relationships.  I see no request for invalid philosophy in the code.  The absence of evidence for one case does not serve as evidence for an opposite case.  That would be known as an argument from ignorance; a leap of faith in exact proportion from both cases, while equitable is devoid of utility.  I reject faith in all forms.  There are no conflicts in reality, if you think you have discovered a conflict in reality then examine your underlying assumptions, it is there you may find your error.  Reality is not vulnerable to interpretation.  Voluntaryism is not a stacked deck.  Initiation of aggression is enemy of the code, as surely as voluntaryism is the code.  



I'm nobody's Captain.  



Beware of Statheists :



https://youtu.be/zXHW3xgNB4c



Woodchuck Pirate

aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

[Doug]

Reality is where conflicts manifest and through self-reflection of reality we can come to the cause of the conflict. Is that a fair statement?

If faith is rejected, in all forms, is the universe dead?

[Woodchuck Pirate]

Reality is where conflicts manifest and through self-reflection of reality we can come to the cause of the conflict. Is that a fair statement?

If faith is rejected, in all forms, is the universe dead?

Do you know the difference between sophistry and philosophy?  Philosopher means lover of truth.  Sophistry sounds like philosophy but isn't, it's simply a well crafted agrgument or at least attempts to posture as an argument.  Life is existence.  Form is the art of living.  I am not my body.  I am no"thing".  I have never found any evidence to suggest that everlasting life is avoidable.  In my perception the definition of hell would be to lie on my death bed and arise to discover myself as anything but consciousness devoid of matter.  



Regarding your inquiry of faith and universe I'll answer per my own underlying assumptions wrapped in a paradigm which I hold in rejection of faith, meaning I could be completely wrong and don't care.  Here is my answer:  "It is my personal observation that consciousness does not happen because of biology, rather consciousness happens despite of biology. "  I have read that knowing the truth doesn't matter, only the truth matters.   If infinity exists then surely truth is infinite.  Faith in science is not science.  It follows that while inhabiting human lifeform and not knowing infinite truth doesn't matter, because only the truth matters.  Consider the phenomenon of black holes, specifically the event horizon where all matter is stripped yet information of everything that passes into the hole may be recorded upon the event horizon.  This speaks to "purpose" and in the absence of a unification theory an individual may choose to reject admitting what they do not know in favor of a popular leap of faith.  The leap of faith is a rejection of consciousness.  Life is existence.  Do you prefer sophistry to philosophy?  If so why?  Base observation of your posts reveals diminished purpose(s).  Were you not born under punches?  



Enjoy your day.  



Woodchuck Pirate

aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

[Eduardo Blomar 1679]

The 'evidence' of The Code shows itself with there being three distinct classes of individuals:



Pirate



Crew



Captain



A pirate is one who has no commitment on board ship, be they Passenger or Marauder.



Crew are those who have committed themselves into a voluntary agreement with a Captain, who owns the ship.



Captains are committed to the welfare of their Passengers and Crew.



_______________________________________________

Is Dereliction of Duty considered an 'act of aggression'?



EB

[Woodchuck Pirate]

The 'evidence' of The Code shows itself with there being three distinct classes of individuals:



Pirate



Crew



Captain



A pirate is one who has no commitment on board ship, be they Passenger or Marauder.



Crew are those who have committed themselves into a voluntary agreement with a Captain, who owns the ship.



Captains are committed to the welfare of their Passengers and Crew.



_______________________________________________

Is Dereliction of Duty considered an 'act of aggression'?



EB

Hence my reference to "creative license".  By the way I'm not exactly a woodchuck.  



Enjoy your day.  



Woodchuck Pirate

aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

[Doug]

"meaning I could be completely wrong and don't care".



Maybe this is where we take a separate path. I care about not being wrong, while also enjoying when i am wrong, because then i can adjust my path.



I don't perfer one identity over another.



We have many layers of coding,if you will, running and i am trying to examine the purpose of each layer, for myself.



In fact, for me, this identity hub-bub makes it really hard to verbally communicate honesty.

[Davi]

It seems to me everyone has the right to expel someone from their own property. A homeowner may expel you from their home, even though you may not expel them, but this doesn't constitute a disparity of rights. It's about context. It's certainly a higher risk scenario where expulsion means floating in the ocean, or worse in space. I stand by the code as written. The best answer I can give is that in the scenario where the captain is the sole owner of the ship, and is employing crew, there is an employment agreement which could easily describe the terms of termination. If you are the captain you are free to write your own code, and if you're the employed crew you're free to raise this concern before setting sail. Perhaps even amending the employment agreement, or the code, aboard that ship. The Pirate Code is not intended as the code of all pirate ships. It's the code of Captain Marque's ship. Historically crews were more likely to maroon someone, or throw them out at the next port, than throw them to the sharks. Hollywood tells a different story for dramatic effect.



Personally, were I captain, I would be extremely careful expelling crew by any means, because I understand that mutiny is always a possibility, regardless of what is written. My reputation as a captain plays a part in keeping conduct on board civilized, and if I push the crew too far they may very well turn on me.

[Eduardo Blomar 1679]

Thank you Davi, for an intelligent response (for a change).



I contend that Property Rights are no less sacred than those of Life and Liberty.



As written, The Code states that Crew have the same 'rights' as Captains.



I disagree.



NO Crew member has a RIGHT to be on my boat EXCEPT BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT WITH ME.



Period.



As a Captain I am offended by this portion of The Code, and will argue for either it's removal, or the addition of a Caveat expressing this Sole Right of Expulsion into The Code.  That is why I began this thread. I hope to hear from others on this (in my view) important matter.



So far, only those who have no desire to be a Captain have commented, and have little regard for the matter. Are there any other Captains out there that have an opinion?



Sincerely,



Eduardo Blomar

Captain

1679

(and yes, I understand all the implications of being a disreputable leader, but they are of no consequence to An Honest Captain. As long as one's Word is kept, only Treachery can take his ship).

[Doug]

Why are you offended? You're a Captain, right? Or as a Captain, you need to have someone else give you permission. Haha.



Silly. That's what this is.

[Eduardo Blomar 1679]

Why have a Code at all, Doug?



Or is that 'silly' also?



Your attitude is why TAXATION is in the U. S. Constitution (which I never would have signed to begin with after reading it.)



E. B. 1679