It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Philosophical Anarchism: A Natural Law

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:23 AM

originally posted by: filosophia
a reply to: greencmp

More or less you are correct, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in murdering someone who commits murder and calling this justice, this is what I take from your statement about reciprocity, (eye for an eye), if this is wrong please clarify. But on another level I am saying that this is simply fact, regardless of my likes or dislikes. Yes, I don't want people to murder, so I would like to believe the law prevents murder, However, that doesn't change the fact that murder still happens, nor does it change the fact that a "lawful execution" is still murder. The fallacy is that an eye for an eye will somehow prevent murder, this not only perpetuates murder through the punishment but also fails to prevent the crime in the first place. The real motive force in society is Individualism, so that a person who engages in an eye for an eye punishment does so because there is nothing preventing this from happening, so that too is anarchy.

I only propose that retribution/reciprocity is the motive energy behind subdued aggression on the whole.

The question becomes whether individuals can handle their own affairs (such as I believe) or that they cannot and must be supported by a violent coercive apparatus (which I do not believe).
edit on 7-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 09:47 AM
a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't argue that many people are influenced/controlled by the 'law', that seems to be the main issue. I just am saying in reality government 'law' is not a natural law, there are exemptions. You or me would not ever think about murder because we would both be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, the president would not, and therefore have reason to contemplate such an example. The president being just a generic position, prime ministers, powerful banking figures, anyone who is above the law, the "globalists", "illuminati" since the 'law' does not affect them, they may be keen to do things you or I could not get away with. Plus, considering the globalists are psychopaths, (just speaking generally) that is all the more reason for them to do something you or I would be too afraid to do. And why does this happen? Because the 'law' holds exemptions and therefore is not like a real natural law. These individuals have the power to do it, and under the real law of Survival of the Fittest, they simply do that because they are following a different law than the criminal justice system.

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 10:01 AM
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Okay, so you asked what would I change? And you also say that natural laws are not real. I would like some clarification of this. Do you not think gravity is real? I don't care what we call it, the terminology doesn't matter, but I think the scientific explanation of gravity is sound, more sound than saying "The Gods" force us to be pushed down to the earth.

I'll answer your question, though. I wouldn't change any laws, since I don't believe in laws, what I do believe in is reason, and public awareness as being an advocate for liberty and true social change. I think that if people viewed the government the way we view the Aztec priests of long ago, we would be better as a society. If you view the government as not some type of Olympic Gods but rather as humans (or even worse, as criminals), then we just try and free ourselves from that weapon which is "the law." This could include not voting for typical government interventions, like forced vaccines, or invasions of privacy, because in a lot of ways the 'New World Order' is moving in this direction which is to create more, not less laws. So that translates to more forces that seek to control people. And as I said in my other comment, I'm not doubting people are afraid of the law, but the point I want to get across is that politicians above the law have no reason to fear the law.

So if the argument is: people can't commit murder because of fear of punishment, then a person who fears no punishment will commit murder. (Note, WILL and not just maybe). If you're saying the only thing stopping a person from committing murder, (and this is really what the other commenter said), then when a person no longer fears that punishment, he WILL think about murder. It's kind of a two way street, either docile sheep on one side, or predatory wolves on the other. However, I don't totally agree with this, that is a worldview I'm painting based on the somewhat faulty logic that only law prevents people from murdering. But basically it just goes to show that the law has exemptions, and these exemptions most likely do influence a person's sociopathic tendencies, because if law prevents us from committing crimes, then being above this law must certainly tempt us into committing crimes!
edit on 9-2-2015 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 9 2015 @ 06:58 PM
a reply to: filosophia

The interesting thing is what you say points at the truth, the problem is it uses bias to point at bias... only perpetuating the problems, bias can't be conquered by creating more bias it just adds to the burden already too heavy to carry.

The problem is the ideologies themselves, accept an ideology? you gain a opinion, a belief a conviction to live fight and die for... it gives one a sense of community and purpose an automatic acceptance among all those embracing the same ideology... it also creates simultaneously a bunch of enemies because by accepting an ideology as a belief and take it as truth because it gives one a sense of purpose... you just denied an opposing ideology any tolerance or understanding because a side was chosen and a line drawn.

These various ideologies that people accept as truth even when they are not truth. Is what creates society and gives the members of it a common sense of purpose... much like one bee can't build a hive as we know it by itself unless it's a queen, but the queen doesn't really do any building does she? She gives the other bees a purpose with the promise to expand the hive with healthy offspring and they build it for her, defending their work and hive to the death because for a bee and it's instinctual nature of it's biological programming this is it's ideal as a way of life as a bee. We can look at a bee or an ant colony and see a microcosm of society in various peoples ideological end.

This is going to sound like a generality but the percentage of it being almost batting 100% true for everyone is very close... but if you ask anyone that has chosen an ideology to live by and they are honest... there is some genocide of their opposing group involved to bring about their ultimate happiness or ideal world to live in... meaning any ideological ideal is never going to come about by any peaceful means if bias is contained within it.

If we look at political positions, we can see the frame work of discrimination as their common foundation. The core Republican ideal of society is bereft of gender equality, sexual equality, racial equality, and any science that destroys their arguments for feeling superior in the ideal world they want to bring about... which is basically the 1950's. Sure someone might want to split hairs and say not all Republicans want that and yell generality and bias. But at the core of the party those are the ideals to bring about their idea of a Republican utopia society... which means if they were to ever banish their opposition and take full power and stay in power... all the Republicans that are ok with gender equality, sexual equality, racial equality or unbiased science would then become the opposition.

If you think I am wrong, then you don't understand the ideological extremes from which many people and organizations operate from like worker bees building the hive... in the end for the ideological utopia to be realized as an ideal society fulfilling it's end goal... any difference from the core values must be eliminated for it to come to pass. So, no it was not a generality when looking forward to what this particular political ideology wants to accomplish for society and the world. All the others are pretty similar in the desire to control society so that it grows into the direction they want it too because they can't handle competition or opposing beliefs or ideologies.

Perhaps we will realize space travel and off world terra-forming and they will experiment with colonies of people sharing the same ideological extremes on worlds and societies all to themselves... you already know the out come though. Where ever there is bias, there is an extreme found in it, even in a society made explicitly for like minded individuals...and where there is one extreme an opposition will arise to challenge the status quo. Of course this opposition, will be silenced or killed off to maintain this ideological utopia... eventually over time enough atrocities against their own group will grow enough to create subversion and political tensions where the majority isn't really a majority anymore.

One only has to realize, that ideological bias is a dead end street for humanity... and we will never have real lasting peace, or prosperity for all citizens of the world unless, we can embrace an ideology that is anti ideology in nature... but to be honest, it's just the acceptance of others right to live a life filled with their own choosing, with respect to another's right to do the same with theirs... if it does not fatally harm another person's life or well-being. But politics being used as a remote control is the real poison here, instead of changing the channel when encountering an opposing view point, it's used in an attempt to control what others have every natural right to do with their lives, and replace that choice with their own purpose or ideal of what life, the world, and society should be... instead of just accepting it as it is, with all it's differences, and celebrating them in their own right with mutual respect and understanding that accepts others right to live their own lives as they see fit.

This is the entire problem in a nutshell, and what the ideology of the "melting pot" the US was founded on is supposed to be all about... of course at some point Christian ideals were allowed to pollute the political stage ignoring separation of church and state, and declared the US is a Christian country... when it is not that at all... except in the ideologies got snuck in from those with the agenda to sneak them in... creating a constitutional interpretation pollution that has managed to find it's way in, and started forcing it's ideals and agenda, on citizens in an attempt to control other peoples lives and limit their choices of what to do with it, instead of using the preamble of the constitution that was supposed to set the tone for laws and interpretation for those to come in succeeding generations to maintain freedom. The morality pollution really needs the boot from American politics and the law books, because of the bias, intolerance, and division among it's own citizens, and the other people of the world this unconstitutional systemic bias creates enemies with too.

We can find our own personal sense of purpose unlike the bee, but the powers that be don't seem to find letting control go and putting power back in the hands of it's people... conducive to their ideological agenda's, that are erroneously thought to lead to some sort of utopia. If there's any room for bias, intolerance, and extremes that give rise to hate in a belief system... it isn't a viable reality to be working towards as a life's purpose, and not worth believing in making ones life purpose a waste of time, and much more of a struggle wrought with suffering for a reason with out any discernible ration.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in