Originally posted by PoeteMaudit
Straw man aside, I'd like to live in the Wild West.

Aheh yeah, the wild west.

I am reminded of those WW2 films, where some Nazi-empowered polish ass, decides to "have a hangin!" right out in the public square.

You know, it only takes a few asses to "have a hangin", but you can see it takes even fewer asses to run from truth in ye olde internets.

Yeah sure, life would be great if we brought back spontaneous hangins as in deep south crap-ville and Nazi countries. Yeahright.

Anyway, based on the wild west frontier of 1939 Poland, I'm telling my stockbroker, to go long on rope. Haha, get it? Go long, on rope? Haha. Anyway, yeah, having hangings would scratch that mosquito bite ever present in the masses, where they need to feel somethin's bein' done.

I enjoyed that recent remake of a classic John Wayne post-US Civil War Hollywodd film, "True Grit" which opens with a hangin. In Russia at the time of True Grit, they were actually eating actual grit, I think. But I digress.

Ah. Yeah. What I asked was for you to walk us through what disobedience to the law, means. You did not do that, just nice thoughts.

I don't think I follow the question: are you asking what happens when someone breaks the law?

Okay, to point #1 above, that sounds like nihilism which Albert Pike said would be used to destroy all religions. I feel that Marx-ism is Pike-ism is Lucifer-ism. Do you understand? If you say things "must fail", then I can agree to a point, but I will quickly return to my earlier points, which are the pinion of the question.

How would you say nihilists are enabled by your statement above? Where does one rally to anti-nihilism? Where is that flag, and how do people rally to it?

I don't consider myself a nihilist or anarchist, but I do consider myself an observer and my observation is that if we continue in our form of "capitalism" or convert to a form of "communism" then sooner or later it will fall. To focus too much on "isms" is where the bottleneck occurs. Labeling something is great, but thinking outside of labels into free thought creativity is where we need to go else another "ism" becomes our false savior.

And to point #2 above, my question is, do you mean "them"? And is there a them in both the capital-ist nations, and is that them on good terms with the them, in commune-ist nations? We must define thi we, and this them, that you refer to. But you said you are afraid of losing some freedoms, yet patriots should not fear jail, so essentially, you feel that going to jail is not a loss of freedom? Trying to follow your logic here, thanks.

My "logic" (or frame of thinking which is what I think you mean) is that if you go about fearing what can happen chances are you will not take risks to get to certain intented goals. Example, you fear water yet one of your children is drowning in a pool with no one around to help. You can stay in fear or risk it all for your child. Most would jump in. Fear is a deterent but there are other motivations that when compared to fear, overcome it. Same goes for "breaking" the law. If you break it you know there's a chance to be arrested. Now the choice lies in the individual, does he/she see the risk as something worth while? I believe certain laws are necessary if I haven't made that clear up to this point, but others not so much. Is it some philosophical idea that can formed in an objective way? Perhaps, but that's not where I am coming from; speaking from a purely subjective point of view (only possible point of view really).

As far as the 'them" part, not sure which passage I wrote that you want me to elaborate on, feel free to quote me and I'll address it the best way I can.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I don't think I follow the question: are you asking what happens when someone breaks the law?

You said "We make the laws." I called you on it. Then you got fuzzy about how "we" put the people in power who make the laws. You are still wobbling. I am explaining to you, that laws, and lawmakers, and lawfollowers, are all the same meme. Example: Let's say I am not a follower of law. I am a pagan Germanic barbarian, about to sack Rome. Tell me, what law means. And if I disobey the law which you say "we" create, then what happens? As a Roman, what does "lawless barbarian" mean to you? Can you understand my question?

Walk us through what it means to break the law, and suffer the consequences. To do that, you have to set the context, don't you? I am trying to encourage you to set that context.

And then, compare that to the other -isms. Perhaps by clarifying, we can get to the real topic, which is what law-enforcement is, versus, lawbreaking.

Perhaps, but that's not where I am coming from; speaking from a purely subjective point of view (only possible point of view really).

So the only valid mental state, is subjectivism, and therefore truth cannot be known?

And how subjective, is being bashed in the face with a policeboot? Is it as subjective, as say, having handcuffs put on and being slapped around in prison? And what difference if that's a Russian prison, or a US prison or a Muhhammedan prison? Key questions.

Law, is like the police baton, I would say. It's usefulness against the common man, knows no language borders.

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I don't think I follow the question: are you asking what happens when someone breaks the law?

You said "We make the laws." I called you on it. Then you got fuzzy about how "we" put the people in power who make the laws. You are still wobbling. I am explaining to you, that laws, and lawmakers, and lawfollowers, are all the same meme. Example: Let's say I am not a follower of law. I am a pagan Germanic barbarian, about to sack Rome. Tell me, what law means. And if I disobey the law which you say "we" create, then what happens? As a Roman, what does "lawless barbarian" mean to you? Can you understand my question?

Walk us through what it means to break the law, and suffer the consequences. To do that, you have to set the context, don't you? I am trying to encourage you to set that context.

And then, compare that to the other -isms. Perhaps by clarifying, we can get to the real topic, which is what law-enforcement is, versus, lawbreaking.

Perhaps, but that's not where I am coming from; speaking from a purely subjective point of view (only possible point of view really).

So the only valid mental state, is subjectivism, and therefore truth cannot be known?

And how subjective, is being bashed in the face with a policeboot? Is it as subjective, as say, having handcuffs put on and being slapped around in prison? And what difference if that's a Russian prison, or a US prison or a Muhhammedan prison? Key questions.

Law, is like the police baton, I would say. It's usefulness against the common man, knows no language borders.

Ok first of all I didn't say "We make laws" I said specifically "We impose limits on other human beings all the time; they are called laws. As free as we like ourselves to be there is a reason we do not live in the wild west". You might take it to mean the same thing, but you have to put it in the context in which it was said AND in reply to another post. That's how communication breakdown happens.

Do you not agree that "WE" (as in society, unless you want to specifically define what society means) pass certain laws (through whatever process)? What's the hold up here I don't understand. If you are trying to make a philosophical distinction between the individual or specific culture and how it's lumped in with the "society" in general then that would be a separate argument wouldn't it?

How am I wobbling and or backtracking, surely that's entirely in your imagination. You asked me to clarify and I did. Sounds to me like you want to get some sort of high or something by trying to put words into people's mouths and patting yourself in the back afterwards.

The funny thing is I don't necessarily disagree with your meme thought, but sometimes when someone is so determined to make a perceived important point that they muzzle those around them saying things in a similar fashion. Breaking the "law' is something that is entirely connected to state power, or other power structures, in that you have to have a system in place that states certain restrictions on behaviors and actions, which ideally are based on consensus and/or common societal benefit. To live in this society means to "play the game" so to speak, unless something drastic happens in which the system changes into another power structure with different restrictions and limitations or a complete change over into something not resembling a system altogether (localized power is somewhat different from central power, even the word "power" can be challenged in definition).

As to your comment "So the only valid mental state, is subjectivism", again you are reading but not reading what I said. There is only one reality that we experience and that is the subjective type. We would like to think that at times we are objective, but to be objective is to totally separate yourself from your own view point, personal and cultural biases as well as your psychological nuances. A form of Collectivism is needed when dealing in large clusters of population unfortunately and there it breeds systems of governance, which breed laws, which breeds enforcement. As I said before in this thread I believe we are moving away from that, and I think that's for the better. Not for some selfish nihilistic reason of some sort of warped individualized sense of importance, but for the continued evolution of our species.

To address the quote of police baton hitting your subjective face (had to lol at that one), while I might say we (as in every individual) experience life subjectively, obviously we do it together. So we cook up objectivity to the other world ("reality") and agree on observations which can be verified by others. When I talk about subjectivity I am not talking as if we each live in separate dreams worlds or something so of course others actions have a part in your own life

I am not here pushing one way or the other. Personally I believe we as a species can do much better, but who doesn't? I am also not here to argue for agruments sake, so it is what it is.

And how subjective, is being bashed in the face with a policeboot? Is it as subjective, as say, having handcuffs put on and being slapped around in prison? And what difference if that's a Russian prison, or a US prison or a Muhhammedan prison? Key questions.

Law, is like the police baton, I would say. It's usefulness against the common man, knows no language borders.

See you confuse me because essentially we are thinking along the same lines, yet you are coming at me in a debative matter lol. This quote in particular reminds me of some of Derrick Jensen's material. If you haven't read any of his stuff I'm sure you would find it interesting.

Here are some of his quotes:

“If monetary value is attached to something it will be exploited until it’s gone. That’s what happens when you convert living beings to cash. That conversion, from living forests to lumber, schools of cod to fish sticks, and onward to numbers on a ledger, is the central process of our economic system.”

"No matter what we call it, poison is still poison, death is still death, and industrial civilization is still causing the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet"

“What I fear and desire most in this world is passion. I fear it because it promises to be spontaneous, out of control, unnamed, beyond my reasonable self. I desire it because passion has color, like the landscape before me. It is not pale. It is not neutral. It reveals the backside of the heart.”

“Grades are a problem. On the most general level, they're an explicit acknowledgment that what you're doing is insufficiently interesting or rewarding for you to do it on your own. Nobody ever gave you a grade for learning how to play, how to ride a bicycle, or how to kiss. One of the best ways to destroy love for any of these activities would be through the use of grades, and the coercion and judgment they represent. Grades are a cudgel to bludgeon the unwilling into doing what they don't want to do, an important instrument in inculcating children into a lifelong subservience to whatever authority happens to be thrust over them.”

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
See you confuse me because essentially we are thinking along the same lines, yet you are coming at me in a debative matter lol.

Hehe, you called me on it. Excellent response also. Don't know the dude, but again, good words.

There is a conspiracy. Does this writer dude speak to it, or is it more words around the truth?

My question is simple: At the time of the movie "True Grit" meaning post civil war era, were the actual Russians, actually eating grit?

Because Marx, and his "ism", seems to have won over there. And Uncle Sam, and his capital and his (ism), seem to have won "over here".

So what difference does one more writer make?

Again I ask you to define law, and the consequences of breaking it. I ask you to set the implied contexts behind such terms as "we" and "make" and "the law". You're doing okay, but quoting some dude's nice words, means you really cannot say on your own, what the context of lawfulness is.

Are courts, lawful? Are they "full of law"? And does being "full of law" mean "full of force of law"?

Also, this thing called "court" means what? Isn't that where juries, used to determine what law was? Well I mean, when juries had the power to nullify unfair laws, back in the past? I know you get what I mean MushroomChewer, I myself have also chewed a few mushrooms and enjoyed that (made some nice punch from the boiling of them as well...yum!)

Yes, we do agree, but I'm trying to pin down what these memes mean. If I read another book, my head will explode, so let's use this thread to find truth. Thanks my friend.

I see where you are getting at, and you are right, an automatic response with a conditioned idea that of which isn't of your own origin. Just realized why you focused on the comment "We" ..