What about any of my stances is conservative? I am not a conservative. I have never voted Republican in my entire life. I am a staunch atheist.

I do not "bend" to these silly generalizations of political affiliation. I go where logic, reason, and facts dictate.

I've been called a "libtard" in conservative channels as well. I guess if I'm a libtard to the conservatives, and a "Nazi" to the leftists, I'm probably as close to the truth as you can get.

What I said there wasn't an insult. It's a set of generalizations that are going to be very accurate, whether you like that or not.

The world doesn't revolve around your feelings, it revolves around reality. Intellectual conversation isn't about feeling good about something, it's about understanding a framework of proper predictions surrounding reality.

I never gave a single personal opinion about any of what you quoted there. I have nothing wrong with coloring your hair, getting piercings, or believing Trump is a piece of garbage (he is.)

My point is that there are stereotypcal forms of behavior common with certain types of people. You also took my post out of context, I also outlined the right, stating stereotypes on that front as well such as Trump being ordained by God.

But this is what I'm talking about. You took what portion of my post that you subjectively didn't like and instead of having any semblance of a conversation about it, called me a Nazi.

I am not a Nazi in any shape or form. In fact, I am against the Republican party. I am an atheist, I believe in laws pertaining equally to everyone and in my personal life I treat everyone regardless of things like race, sexual orientation, or sex, equally and very fairly.

I raise my children to understand and accept that things like sexism and racism are sinister and that everyone should be treated without bigotry.

And who cares who created the website? Are you telling me that you agree with the general forms of stereotypes I outlined in your quote of me, and this is why you're angry? Is this a form of stereotypical construct of many/most communists or something?

I could have made a website and someone could have made a generalization about me as a man, as a father, as an American, or as a voluntarist, and I wouldn't have called you a "fucking" Nazi.

If you have strong soft skills this isn't so much of an issue, and I highly recommend that. AI can do such a good job in so many avenues, but being able to show up with confidence and understand and present materials to leadership is a very important skillset to possess. In addition, having the ability to solve problems on the fly is also a large asset from my perspective.

Ah, but there are two forms of morality, I would argue. Subjective morality and objective morality. Objective morality is predicated on the things I've outlined already, with subjective morality simply being your individual opinion of what is right and wrong.

The philosophy there is primarily in regard to an explanation as to when a utilization of violence should even be acceptable. For example, I am a staunch atheist, I believe all organized religion is utterly destructive and nonsensical - From a utilitarian perspective I believe it would be better for humanity to outlaw all religion, but I am not an authoritarian, and even though I see all religion as fundamentally immoral, it seems clear to me that we should not use violence to outlaw religion.

In fact, you don't need to, not in a free society.

Because it isn't the religion we need to worry about, it's certain actions. If someone wants to make a moral claim that you should be allowed to marry a 6 year old (Islam), it shouldn't matter what the reasoning is. Gods, religious figures, other authority figures - all irrelevant. It should be universal that good people take up arms and stop anyone from engaging in sexual relations with a 6 year old. This is in fact nearly self-evident, the only people in the world who disagree with this have to use ridiculous, ethereal, nonsensical woo woo claims to quantify to anyone with even the slightest bit of a rational mind.

You ask:

"So let’s make this incredibly simple: What principle of formal logic establishes that the first person to desire exclusive control of something gains a moral right to exclude everyone else?"

You do this through reductionism. You imagine a thought experiment such as follows:

If you are the only person on earth and you are walking through the forest and come across a diamond and suddenly, you desire exclusive authority over that diamond (I.E: You do not want anything to happen to it and want it to remain with you in ways in which you can manipulate.) Who owns that diamond, and why?

Well, you do, because ownership is predicated on us - on humans. The entire discussion surrounding ownership is only valid for mankind. We do not concern ourselves with if we believe that the ants own their anthill, or the squirrel owns the tree. Some might in some form or another, but that's a discussion for another time.

So you would own that diamond simply because there are no other human beings of which there can possibly be a will conflict with. It's a default state. Ownership only even arises when there's a will conflict between humans. You are free to hold exclusive authority over everything you come across if you were the only human on earth.

So you then have to simply - and logically here - conclude that ownership is a construct of which side we "aught" to take during a will conflict between at least two humans. In fact, even if you have more humans in the world but not a single one of them cares about that diamond but you, then you still own it because there are no will conflicts surrounding that diamond.

The only time ownership matters is during the scrutiny of who should hold exclusive authority over something, and someone will ALWAYS hold exclusive authority so long as there is at least one human who desires such. Again, there's no such thing as "public" property - that's nonsense. There is always someone - some government official - who has that final say, and it's never, ever you or I, regardless of how much of our money was taken to procure it.

Ask the authorities when you're escorted out of one of our state parks while it's closed why you can't enjoy your property and see what they say.

If ownership means other things outside of this then the idea itself has no essence, so it means nothing at all. If the definition of ownership is predicated on arbitration of some authoritarian system then whatever that system claims becomes what it is, which means again that it has no essence so really it's a nothing idea. That's stealing and "claiming" it isn't theft because you defined ownership which of course also then means you define theft. That's not how ideas work, those are semantics arguments.

So we can reduce the idea into its fundamental constitute parts and we can only conclude what I've described. There's nothing else you can conclude because the reality is that the idea to own something is a nothing the moment there are no will conflicts surrounding a "something".

So now let's imagine someone comes along and sees you with that diamond and now they want it. Which should we side with? You, who already own that diamond by default, or this new person, who didn't even know that diamond existed all the while you held it, until just now? And why?

We could make an infinite number of arbitrary reasons why the other person should have that diamond, but again, subjectively, you cannot rank the value of your opinions, so even if that person was to say they never got a turn owning it and you did and that's, "fair", that's just an opinion. Your reasons for continuing to own that diamond are just as valid.

But the thing is, if THEY were in your shoes, they would agree with your current will to continue to hold exclusive authority over that diamond as well.

And in addition, since we can only fundamentally define ownership in this way we can also only define theft in one way. Again you can use reductionism to construe what theft can only be. Again, if theft is defined arbitrarily then it's a nothing. Theft must be taking something from someone that they already own without their permission.

Generally the Law of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and mutual exclusion are what philosophers use to understand a fundamental principle of things like ownership.

So it cannot be both true and false at the same time. Regarding property and ownership, this is a principle of exclusion whereas if person A has exclusive authority over object X, then person B cannot. This is how theft is analyzed as well, because an attempt from person B over object X would be an attempt at theft due to the non-contradiction law.

In addition, Plato created the concept of essence through use of his Theory of Ideas (forms). This idea was then used by Aristotle in his philosophy of essence. This is the fundamental, immutable characteristics of what constitutes an idea, as independent from any other idea.

In short, when using words, you are either conveying one singular idea, or you simply think you are but you're really talking about something else entirely (semantics) because you yourself do not really know what it is you're talking about.

It would be like a layperson saying they own a car and when asked what ownership is they give you a reply like, "the law says I own it". They would be the first people to also argue that the state cannot take that car from them because they own it the very second the state changed the law saying they no longer own it.

They simply do not comprehend the fundamental nature of what must manifest the very idea of ownership which is why the blatant contradiction in their reasoning.

I would argue that almost everyone thinks of these things in a very rudimentary way, which is why we have so much authoritarianism/statism in the world today, and always have.

While I accept that for many developers, mods are seen as welcome, my problem with mods is, if you're playing a game of chess with someone and both of you agree to change the rules, then that's perfectly fine, but that's no longer chess. You could in theory not even know the rules of chess and make up your own game using the chessboard and its pieces, but if someone were to ask you if you know how to play chess and you say yes, you wouldn't be able to explain a single rule, so you don't really know how to play chess at all.

If you're modding a game, it's no longer that game anymore, it's something else - which is fine. Some people prefer mods over the "vanilla" game itself, but then we should be honest with the fact that you don't really like the game as much as the version you've frankensteined together.

In addition, a lot of mods make games easier, which is the reason why many players "enjoy them". Some people - and I've been gaming since I was about 3 on an Atari 2600 for over 40 years - seem to just enjoy when a game is "easy" and do not really like anything that makes it harder for them to "win", but those people rarely realize - from my experience, anyway - that this is what they are actually enjoying about mods.

For example, you could play a game that introduces new vehicles or weapons, not understanding that these vehicles and weapons are better than those currently in the vanilla build of the game.

Game developers often do this to their own games in the form of power creep, which almost ALWAYS ruins games (compared to their initial release and/or their highest point.) Take World of Warcraft as an example of this. The power creep got so ridiculous multiple times that they had to rework the entire game's mechanics, skills, and even numbers just to keep the game "working" on a fundamental level.

If I was the first person to desire exclusive ownership of Mars, every future human being would apparently be morally obligated to respect my claim. Even people who have never met me, never agreed to my ownership, and have absolutely no reason to recognize my authority.

Sure, but so what? What you're missing here is the whole picture, which isn't a knock on you. I never said this was simple, but it's also not that complicated when you really get down to it.

Let's say you do own Mars and everyone (or at least, the relative force monopoly) respect that and protect your rights over it. So what? Why should that even be a bad thing from a subjective perspective? Someone HAS to have exclusive authority over everything. There's no such thing as a government - not really. A government is an idea, and ideas cannot own property. They can SAY they own property, but you can say anything you want. An agent of the government can just make a claim saying they can take your house and then the "government" owns it, all the while that single representative is the one who actually has exclusive authority over it.

The notion that you have some say over "public property" (a clear misnomer) is illusory. At least one person who represents "government" has the final say in what happens with that property. There's no vote, and even if there is, there's only a vote because that person or people let it happen. To argue that it'd be absurd to allow you to be the exclusive owner of Mars is nonsensical. Even if this weren't the case, who exactly do you think is going to have exclusive authority over it if we ever do anything with the planet? Someone will. It will likely be divided up between owners, and many - if not the majority of those owners are going to be "government".

Let's assume you "own" a house. Do you, really? Do you hold EXCLUSIVE authority over that house? Can you do anything you want with it barring those actions do not violate the will of your neighbors? Well of course not. Hell, you can't even finish your basement without the OK from the city. But there also is no OK from "the city", is there? There's always a PERSON who gives the OK. What does it matter who voted that person to have that authority? Who cares if that person has a badge, or a uniform, or claims to be "government"? Nothing changes that from just being a human being with the final say in what happens to a thing.

And what about property tax? You never stop paying taxes on the home you reportedly own.

So let's go back to the Mars thing. So you own it, so what? What do you actually think you can do with Mars in a TRUE free society where we actually have freedom of both association and exclusive authority over our own property? Let's say people ask to buy some land on Mars from you and you say no. OK, what if people want you to let them put hospitals on the planet, or power plants, or research facilities, or some such that might better mankind as a whole and you say no?

Well OK, so what stops your reputation from being tarnished due to an overwhelming feeling from people that you're just a selfish asshole? If I own a place that sells food, I can just blacklist you from buying food from me. What happens if you can't make purchases from a large portion of businesses because your reputation is so tarnished that everyone wants nothing to do with you?

What if your money becomes worthless because nobody will trade with you?

A true free society is one where someone can refuse to sell to black people and that's "OK" because even if you and I disagree with that stance, we have freedom of association, so we can just refuse to associate with that individual.

If you like I can touch on your other points but I only had a few minutes to respond right now.

So you've declared your desire to hold exclusive authority over Mars, but that's irrelevant because there's nothing you can do with that. It doesn't really create a conflict of wills of which need resolving in the first place.

Will it tomorrow? Maybe, but also maybe not. Let's say it does. Well how do we resolve such a conflict? In addition, can you own something you've made up but don't fundamentally know of what it is? For instance, what if I say I own your soul? Does your soul even exist? I would argue there's no such thing and there's simply no evidence to support that there's such a thing as soul, so declaring that is kind of irrelevant. Can you own an entire planet? You know there's apparently a planet out there and you know it has a name (likely, many), but do you have an actual context beyond that of that in which you've desired to own? It's a good question I don't have an immediate answer to but it doesn't nullify anything I've said just because it's complicated. Fundamentally, if you are the first person to ever desire exclusive authority with all of Mars, then Mars is your property.

I never said you needed to respect anyone's will. I said it's illogical not to. Logic is objective, and everything subjective is, at its core, arbitrary. There are ideas that are material and ideas that are ethereal - if those are the terms we'll be using, anyway. In other words, you have ideas such as, which ship is the true ship of Theseus? But the truth there is neither, because there never was a ship of Theseus. We made the ship up. There are only simples arranged in particular patterns.

But that kind of thinking isn't helpful for us to navigate the world. We know what fundamentally manifests the idea of "ship", and that's primarily material, but the idea for instance of "trans" is ethereal - it isn't predicated on any kind of essence like ship is. We know what ship is not for instance, and we have enough cardinal attributes associated to ship to communicate the idea of ship, but trans is more abstract so as to not really mean anything - it fundamentally means whatever you want it to because that's all anything without an essence can even mean.

So when you say, "this ship is mine" we can do something with that, but if you say, "I am trans", there's nothing we can do with that information that isn't arbitrary. We can defend your property rights to your property being ship, but how do we defend your rights to being trans without it being wholly arbitrary?

I'm not picking at trans by the way, I'm just using it as an example since it's so frequently in our discourse today.

To circle back and reiterate: I'm not saying that anyone has to respect property rights and clearly some people do not, but this is a philosophical proposition of logic that's by far more rational than the arbitrary systems many use today to discern right and wrong. Saying you obtained your morals from god is nonsensical because it is patently clear that god-beings and "magic" just don't exist. It is delusion to believe that they do, so predicating ones worldview around what doesn't even exist can only lead to coincidence - it cannot lead to actual predictions of reality of which logic can - with certainty - accurately predict.

I'd be happy to go over more of this because I could write an entire book about it - not because it's convolutedly complicated, but because most people don't stop and think what the words they're using even mean. Reductionism is how you get to truth, and reductionism requires logic to get there. We don't know the difference between stool and chair, nor when something stops being something as you shave off atoms, or why we're alive beings made of dead materials, but this is the stuff if ignorance, not of reality. Given enough time and reverse engineering, the answers are likely to come.

That being said, I believe the answers to a solid and just moral framework rely on logic and reason. If you're not using logic and reason, you're simply arbitrating. Everything else becomes an argument over justifying why you should hold exclusive authority over something because you feel a certain way about it. This is always just an argument over might makes right.

I would argue that the whole of human conflict does not come because two or more individuals have a different opinion per say, but because they see the same part of the world and believe it is construed in completely different ways. For instance, in Islam, the prophet Muhammed married a girl who was 6 years old and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Traditional Sunni Hadith outline this, and her name was Aisha bint Abi Bakr. Muslim scholars sometimes argue that she may have been older, but my point is that many millions of people believe the former, and if your worldview is such that the prophet of god was permitted to marry a 6 year old then your worldview is likely to accept that as simply a god-given moral construct.

It is not a matter of, "why can't we all just get along" when you have someone who believes it should be OK to marry a 6 year old with a marriage consummation of 9. For many millions, that is simply rape and there is no way to reconcile this - do this and the answer must be violence. Full stop.

Or another example could be China or Russia's believe that America and capitalism are sinister agents of the world while many Americans see Communism and the collectivist way as ultimately sinister and authoritarian. There are never any "good" arguments between the two, simply different justifications for why "I feel strongly, therefore fuck you".

This stance I'm presenting is a philosophical neutral point (it's more or less the NAP just described in more detail) that explains why it shouldn't matter how you feel because everyone should be allowed to live their life the way they so choose so long as they are not initiating actions of which violate the will of others.

In short, do not murder, assault, rob, or defraud others.

And the thing here is: The moment you want to try to argue that there are justifications for murder, assault, theft, or fraud, why should anyone care to hear you out anymore? When you show up at my doorstep armed threatening to kill my children, there's only one answer I have for you, there's no alternative discussion there.

And I will be on the right side of morality, it doesn't actually matter how you or I feel about it personally.

Try to use mental gymnastics to pour over justifying why you should be able to murder my children just doesn't matter, and it shouldn't matter, and my explanation for why is a hell of a lot more logical and rational than justifications predicated on, "I feel strongly, so fuck you".

In fact, what I propose doesn't even concern how I feel personally. You could live your life in ways I completely think are nonsensical, delusional, or down right self-destructive, and my stance is simply that you should be allowed. I might try to convince you otherwise, but never use violence to control how you live.

There is no other way for us to coexist in this world without a non-stop attempt at dominating one another unless we adhere to this kind of worldview. No other worldview comes even close.

Absolutely.

So you have objective and subjective morality. Morality simply meaning actions we should or should not take. If something is immoral, it is an action we should not take. What actions should we not take is predicated on logic.

The fundamental premise here is simple: You cannot desire the violation of your own will.

This is actually impossible. Let's say for instance that you don't want to be punched in the face, but then you want me to punch you in the face. You are not desiring the violation of your own will here, your will has simply changed to desiring that I strike you. Even if you changed your mind again, you are still not desiring the violating of your own will.

And since it is not possible to quantify value in an objective way, you also cannot create an objective hierarchy of value for will. Your will and mine are equal, for all intents and purposes. Any and all ideas we might have that seem to contradict that claim are merely our personal opinions.

So what this fundamentally means is that since you would never want me to initiate any actions of which violated your will - AND you cannot quantify an objective hierarchy of value for human will - then it leads that you as well should not initiate any actions of which violate my will.

Imagine the golden rule but edited in just the slightest. It's not do unto others as you would want done to you but do unto others as they would want done to them.

In fact, majoritively this is how all human societies already engineer themselves - they just take a great many smaller caveats away from this in their own quest for greed and power.

Take murder, rape, assault, theft, or fraud for instance. ALL of those things are only made manifest when at least one party initiates an act against another in which the second party did not consent. If you hand me $20 and your will is aligned to do so (a gift, say), that does not manifest the idea of theft. But if I take that $20 from you without your permission, I have violated your will within a logical order of operations across time.

In short, we both held the same will as it pertained to that $20 - exclusive authority over it.

The reason why you are the owner of that $20 is because you fulfilled two primary fundamental criteria: 1. You desired exclusive authority over it. And 2. You did not violate the will of another as it pertains to that $20 in order to obtain exclsuive authority over it.

In other words, you wanted it and you didn't steal it.

And these things predated my will to also hold exclusive authority over it. We have a conflict here though - a conflict of wills - where both of us desire an outcome that we both cannot have. There is only one $20 bill and both of us want exclusive authority over it, but only one of us can.

So morally, we back you, because logically neither of us can desire the violation of our own wills and also because your will predated mine. In short, in order for you to continue to hold exclusive authority over that $20, you need do nothing, whereas for me to hold exclusive authority over it, I must violate the second rule of ownership - I must violate your will in order to have it. I have to rob you.

This is why societies punish murderers, rapists, robbers, and fraudsters. They don't punish all of them because of power and corruption, but as a whole, all societies always have done this, or desired to do this, given their resources and power.

Rape as another example does not manifest unless there's at least one non-consenting party. Same thing for murder. If both of us went into an MMA match together for example and we both fully understand the risks therein - including but not limited to possible death - then so long as we both followed the rules then if one of us died in the ring, we didn't commit murder. Would it be a tragedy? Well, sure, but it wouldn't (and shouldn't) be called murder.

Now if I laced my gloves with lead which wasn't in the rules and you didn't consent to that? Then I murdered you. Even if my intent wasn't to kill you, that is still breaking your consent which lead to a highly negative outcome for you. In many societies across the world as well we wouldn't even classify such an act as first degree murder, and the penalty wouldn't be as severe, though it would still be severe.

Or if someone tries to enter my home to harm me and my family and I put them down - that too isn't murder, even though the assailant didn't want to die, the logic there is that my will predated theirs - I did not want someone to attack me and my family, or even enter my home without my consent - so the moment they did my act of violence was a reaction to their initiated act of which violated my will. It'd be akin to taking my $20 back if you stole it from me. I should be allowed to at that point even if you don't want me to because it's my $20.

In fact you already agree to this because you have no choice because of the two cardinal premises here. You would never want me for example to violate your will, so even if you were to tell me you would be OK if I took $20 from you that's missing the point - that just means your will was aligned to give me $20. I again, never robbed you. You never ACTUALLY want to be robbed, you might just agree if someone takes something from you that you subjectively agree with their justification for doing so and thus, change your will so that you would be OK with them having what they took.

Your will was never violated then.

I need not demonstrate any such thing. There's a difference between subjective and objective morality. We live in a world where we humans have self-awareness, and with that self awareness comes concepts of logic, reason, and justice. Unfortunately for us, human conflict arises and it isn't always clear which side of said conflicts are good or bad.

For example, maybe you don't like the existance of these lightning cables. OK, great. And you may have a lot of reasons for not liking them, but those are all subjective. Value itself, is subjective. Someone else might love the lightning cable. So who is correct?

Even if you can come up with 30 ways why you think the lightning cable is bad that doesn't make your stance objective. You could say for example that the cable makes more waste. OK, but I don't have to value waste creation the same way you do. Maybe I don't care at all about waste.

You could say that the cable is too expensive and there aren't enough alternatives. Great, I would agree with you on all of these fronts (remember, I don't buy Apple products. None) but that STILL doesn't mean they're not just opinions.

Objectively, lightning cables aren't bad. If you don't want a lightning cable, don't buy one, and don't buy Apple products. I should be allowed to have them if I want them. It isn't for you or anyone else to tell me I can't, and it doesn't matter what justifiers you have for it.

The only time when the lightning cable would become objectively "bad" is if there is something to do with the cable that violates the will of another in the same logical way that manifests concepts such as murder, assault, theft, or fraud. For example, if the waste is being dumped on your property and you don't want it there.

But then the "problem" isn't the lightning cable at all, it's that Apple is dumping trash on your property without your consent. Again, the lighting cable isn't the issue, the act of violating property rights is the issue.

Does this make sense? I want to make sure I am explaining these concepts in a way that make sense.

How do you define a free market? The only laws you need - fundamentally - are those in which aren't victimless crime laws. A free market is predicated on ownership, and the fundamental essence of ownership requires two cardinal premises:

1. You desire exclusive will over something.
2. You obtain exclusive will over that something without violating the preexisting will of another to hold exclusive authority over it. I.E: You didn't steal someone to get it.

If a third party (the government) can tell you what you can do with your property then it is violating your exclusive will over it. In short, the government is robbing you. Theft doesn't - and in fact cannot - simply mean I take a something from you. I could take your wallet off my counter because you left it in my home with the intent of bringing it back to you. You could borrow me your car with an understanding that I will give it back to you the moment you request it.

But if I take your car without you knowing and without your consent, EVEN if I brought it back later that day and filled up the tank, I have robbed you. It doesn't matter that I brought the car back. Theft has very little to do with the location of property and certainly rarely ever to do with having property on ones person. The moment I leave my house almost everything I own is no longer on my person, but I expect it to be where I left it when I get home.

The moment another entity can dictate what you can do with your property you no longer have freedom, because freedom requires your will remain unviolated (in a logical order of operations across time.) So I would argue that if your consent is being violated, you are no longer existing within the confines of a free market.

Now if your argument is that an employer could ask you to work 24 hours in a day or terminate employment - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. If YOU consent to it, then it's OK. What on earth makes you think that a third party has any right to come in between two consenting adults? Is that third party the wise and affluent intellectual, and the employee the simpleton barbarian?

The mere fact that freedom requires violence utilized to protect from things like murder, rape, assault, theft, and fraud means that you do not need to really worry about things like labor laws. So long as an employer cannot force you to do something at gun point means you get to consent. In addition, so does everyone else.

I'm not working for a business that forces employees to work 24 hour working days. I'm also not BUYING anything from those businesses, would you?

And remember that if a business hides these facets from the market that fundamentally is what fraud is. Fraud, I would argue, is at its core about trying to get someone to consent to something by purposely (or by way of negligence) misleading them. I KNOW a lot of people wouldn't work for me or buy from my business if they knew I employed children, so I will hide that fact - that's fraud.

And since you cannot live in a free society where there's rampant fraud, there would need to be individuals ready and willing to use violence against it. Frankly the proper answer to such a thing would be to just apprehend the owners of the business directly. The fact that we treat companies like individuals is nonsensical. If you want nefarious acts done via business to fade away, start imprisoning the owners/CEO's for what their businesses do.

The good and just need not permit the machinations of the sinister. If someone shows up to your home to threaten you and your family, the just and proper answer is to end them. Violence is in no way intrinsically evil in its own right. The sword - it can be used in the defense of the innocent and goodly, or to enslave the masses.

Well it depends on what you mean by cheating. Cheating tends to be a concept where more than one player is agreeing to a single ruleset and when one of those players breaks that ruleset, that's the cheating.

You cannot compete in a system if you don't both work in the same system. How do you know who's won in a game of chess for example if the other player is playing as if all of their pawns are queens, and you are not? From their perspective they won, but from yours, they didn't play the same game you're playing.

So it changes when you play a game by yourself. In my view, the ruleset was created by the developers. Now clearly you could say that maybe the devs wanted additional rulesets and didn't have the time, money, or inclination to make them, and you could also say that some devs are actively accepting of alterations to their game, but you have to ask yourself then what the rulesets of that game really are.

For me, and this is just for me, even when the devs themselves make sweeping changes to a game I can lose interest - especially when those changes "dumb down" the content and make it more accessible/simpler. Take mmo's for example: If for 2 years the game required other players and a lot of time investment and then suddenly the devs make a huge patch where you can now solo everything and achieve the same past accomplishments in a quarter of the time, I feel like that's "cheating". Generally I just quit when that happens.

Obviously this isn't an objective thing here, it's just my personal opinion. I think generally the original vision of the game is the "intended" vision, so altering it in certain ways just seems like it's going against the spirit of the game itself.