Why Society is a Joke and I am a True Cynic

I'll readily admit that I have entertained the idea of anarchism, but I will also admit that after following those thoughts through I quickly realized that true anarchism is a breeding ground for all sorts of evil. In an anarchist society (with humans anyway) the crazies and the truly evil are going to take over and enslave everyone to their society - it's just a matter of time. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the civilization arose from the minds of crazy and evil people who took the first leap to bring it into being and point to history as my evidence, particularly the form of governance known as the State, if it wouldn't get the lovers of society so riled up they would miss the point of this post.

Laws, laws, laws! That's the problem and the joke. We don't require so many and we all know it, yet we find ourselves living under more and more. Sure, we require some laws or else we'd have anarchy, so rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater I'd like to just take a look at laws and bring to your mind what I mean when I say they are the problem.

Who makes laws? People. And in a democratic society who makes laws? The people (supposedly). And since laws are nothing more than universally accepted decrees by people how does one go about making a law that is accepted by the majority? You change public opinion. So essentially society is governed by a set of agreements on things called "laws" that are decided by public opinion which can easily be influenced, changed, or altered by nothing more than a seemingly convincing arguement, or a couple billion dollars and a huge media operation. Does this realization make me bad for declaring myself a Cynic?

But let's look at the core of society and civilization and ask ourselves...Why do we need laws? We need them because the crazies and the truly evil will hurt us and rule over us without them. So we need government whether we like it or not. If we don't have some form of governance a form will be given to us by the crazies and the truly evil.

So, with that in mind, what sort of laws do we really need? And here is why I am a Cynic...We only truly need a handful of laws - that is it. I'd think 99.9% of people would agree we need a law to say "This is our form of governance", another law forbidding murder, one forbidding all forms of rape or forceful and violent bodily harm, one forbidding theft, one forbidding swindling, one protecting the planet from being raped, and that's about it. The rest can sort itself out in anarchist type fashion without turning into Hell on Earth.

Plain and simple. We only need a handful of laws that cannot ever be changed or altered, which are absolute and eternal (unlike other laws), which require no interpretation. If a jury of peers says it happened, it happened - end of story, and they even get to create the punishment to fit the crime.

Yeah, you're still going to have wrong-doing, but at least you won't have anyone telling you what to put in your own body, to wear your seat belt, or to please stand over here while you protest (such laws are put in place to prevent death and harm, supposedly, but personally I'd rather take my chances at being self responsible and responsible for my offspring, as well as responsible for whether or not I kill or hurt anyone through my actions than have more laws telling me or anyone else what to do. Unlike some, I have faith that in such a society common sense will eventually win out and be a dominant trait rather than nonexistent like it is in our modern society.

Some might cry, "But what about equality? How would we guarantee all people are treated equally?" To that I answer, "You can't do it. We can't even do it in this hellhole we call modern society." It's not laws that make people equal - it's morals. So long as murder is murder and harming others is seen as one of the universal laws, that's about all that "government" can and should do - the rest is up to us. Less laws and more self involvement through responsible action and moral integrity - that's the ticket!

And still some would say, "You said theft should be outlawed, but how would we know what belongs to who without more laws?" A jury of peers. Your neighbor isn't going to want to see you lose your property anymore than you want to see him lose his, and if dishonesty emerges, everyone will understand that what comes around goes around, because some day it will be your turn on the jury deciding your neighbor's fate, which promotes honesty and integrity.

In my humble opinion, life is complex and hellish because we have so many complex and hellish laws and hoops to jump through and sort out in the name of "safety and security" - it is always in the name of safety and security. All of this forced prevention stuff has to end and we have to bring back self responsibility. For example, we have to make people not want to drive drunk and kill people (through the creation of moral integrity, a reason to live, and maybe even wanting to live sober, as well as have self responsibility) rather than forbidding them to drive drunk, which then brings on checkpoints and all sorts of ridiculous laws which invade our privacy, our lives, and our peace.

And forced preventitive "pre-crime" laws are just one category of laws destroying society rather than helping it. Basically, in my opinion, if it doesn't land under one of the handful of necessary laws I suggested - it is unnecessary and tyrannical. Educational laws and tax laws would be two other forms that simply shouldn't be, in my opinion. Who's going to build the roads then? Whoever the hell wants too. And how are we guaranteed a right to use that road? You're not, but you would be guaranteed you couldn't be killed or beaten or swindled for trying.

We need to simplify. It shouldn't be illegal to counterfeit, rip-off people, or sell worthless junk, and have all the laws that come with those decrees, it should just be unlawful to swindle others - one law says it all. Let a jury decide if any instance amounts to swindling. Don't allow government or some agency to interpret the law - let the people do it, and only let the people do it in small numbers on a case-by-case basis!

So why am I cynical of society besides some of the reasons mentioned above? Because you can't drive 65 in a 55 because it is unsafe, but it is perfectly safe for a cop with flashing lights to drive 80 in a 55 just to catch up with you to pull you over and give you a fine - it makes no sense. If the point is that you might kill someone by driving at such an unsafe speed, then why is the cop driving at an unsafe speed and potentially threatening lives just to pull you over? Yeah, he might be taking more precautions, but for what? The presumption that you "might" kill or hurt someone? It's kind of stupid when you think about it, especially when you realize that people still speed, so all the speeding laws are really doing is placing double the lives in jeopardy for a pre-crime concept, and of course, generating money for the criminal State. Maybe more people would drive safely if more people cared about life, and maybe more people would care about life if they had more self-responsibility, and maybe more people would be responsible if they had more self-responsiblity on their plate and less laws made by the State to provide them with "safety and security"?

Continued Below...

So, I am an extreme minimalist on many levels, and one of them is when it comes to laws and governance. In this society, the one we have, I am a Cynic. I laugh at it and see it all as one huge joke. Like Diogenes of Sinope, you might think of me as a dog or a poor and lowly creature for not loving this magnificent civilization, but like Diogenes, I think the dog a nobel creature who needs but a few rules to govern his life, a life with more dignity and care for the self and others than any so-called civilized society in existence on this planet. Sure, a dog might do some pretty disgusting things, but then again...who decided those things were disgusting - it wasn't the dogs. But don't worry, even if you happen to think your dog does some disgusting things he'll still greet you with enthusiasm and love when you return home after your most recent outing in this magnificent hellhole we call modern civilization, and be there to remind you that someone still gives a damn and he (or she) didn't need any damned laws to teach them how to love others.

I agree

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

Laws, laws, laws! That's the problem and the joke. We don't require so many and we all know it, yet we find ourselves living under more and more. Sure, we require some laws or else we'd have anarchy, so rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater I'd like to just take a look at laws and bring to your mind what I mean when I say they are the problem.

By declaring law as the problem you have all ready distanced yourself from any effective solution or answer to the problem. Law is not the problem as you mean it. Legislation is the problem as you mean it. Legislation, however is not law anymore than a map is territory, a word the thing defined or picture of an apple nutritious. At best, legislation will describe law accurately. At worst, legislation will authorize unlawful acts. By equating legislation with law it becomes easier to accept bogus legislation. The real problem is that so many people insist on distinguishing the "laws of science" from the "laws of humans".

All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Whether it be bodies in motion, planetary bodies in motion, gravity, or the human rights, all of it is simple, true, universal, and absolute. The right to life is just as simple as gravity is. The right to defend ones life is just as true as bodies in motion. The right to speak freely, to publish freely, to worship freely, to assemble peaceably and to demand a redress of grievances from ones government is as universal and absolute as the planetary bodies of motion.

The existence of tyranny does not undermine the above assertion any more than plummeting Wiley Coyotes chasing cartoonish Roadrunner's across the expansive gaps of the Grand Canyon undermines gravity. Gravity does not become a "theory" simply because people jump off of buildings and lemmings off of cliffs. Without any proper apparatus that allows an act harmonious with the law of gravity, people jumping off of cliffs will experience a downfall just as sure as Wiley Coyote regularly does. Conversely, without the any proper apparatus that allows an act harmonious with the laws of human rights, governments will topple. History is replete with tales of revolutions, coups, and insurrections and where a tyrant may find ways to prolong the downfall, sooner or later, just like Wiley Coyote...

Who makes laws? People. And in a democratic society who makes laws? The people (supposedly). And since laws are nothing more than universally accepted decrees by people how does one go about making a law that is accepted by the majority?

People most assuredly do not make laws. People did not make gravity and People did not make the laws of human rights. Indeed, many of those human rights are so simple, so true, so universal and absolute that they extend to all living creatures great and small. All creatures, great and small, have the right to life. All creatures, great and small, have the right to defend their life. The rose does not need a Congress of roses to derive the right to keep and bear thorns. The porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to derive the right to keep and bear needles and the skunk does not need permission from the state in order to spew its stink. The rose, porcupine and skunk all have the right to self defense and I have never heard anyone even attempt to make a reasonable argument otherwise. Where did these creatures derive their rights?

Regardless of public opinion, or "conventional wisdom", the rights of all humans preexist all governments. The possible way for any government to survive is by that government spreading its power equally across the board. This is why, lawfully speaking, it is We the People who hold the inherent political power. We do because this is the best way to use power; evenly distributed. The reason for this is because power does corrupt and absolute power does corrupt absolutely. It is most imprudent to allow political power to concentrate into the hands of only a few. This is the simple, true, universal, and absolute recipe to tyranny. Just concentrate the power and keep it from spreading equally.

Society is indeed a joke, and certainly no friend of mine, but laws are no joke and those who understand the law are the ones better prepared to deal with the inevitable usurpation and acts of aggression by others that invariably arise. Ignorantia juris non excusat is Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is a common law principle that has existed since time immemorial not because of "public opinion" but because it is simple, true, universal and absolute. Know the law; fortune favors the prepared mind.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


Good Post, and thanks for the non-rant, HIlly! Here's yer star!
I believe there's a quote that ends "Simplify, simplify" makes
so much sense. I believe we don't have to resort to a book burning
in order to get the country back, quite the opposite. All that stuff is
necessary to the infrastructure, as long as who's interpreting the law
has THE PEOPLE's interest as the prime motive. All corruption begins
with selfishness, and that's the diffference between a politician and a
statesman. Might be the whole reason behind that nine percent
approval rating of Congress maybe?
How about this for starters-- term limits, NO PAY NO PENSION, and
when you're done being a public servant, you go home and back to work.
I believe while a person represents me in Washington DC or my state
capital the individual deserves THE SAME WAGE he made before
getting elected, free room and board in the roach hotel, and in total
inverse to the concept now, SPIT THE SUCKER BACK OUT.
And that bottle o'shine's gotta have great polish to it by now... hoo-ee.

This will sound quite strange, but just think about it for a while everybody before dismissing it completely.

Laws will be necessary until humans have evolved to the point where we can read each other's minds.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


I agree with much of what you presented. We definitely need legislation to protect ourselves from the truly evil and malicious individuals present in our society, but not so much that it impedes on our rights and freedoms as individuals. The amount of legislation out there is way too excessive and is deriding our sense of self-responsibility and common sense.

---

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


While I do not agree with all of your reply, I did find it refreshingly insightful and eloquently stated. Good job.

This is why dmocracy doesnt work, 51% rules 49%. I have some issue with your view that if there was anarchy the crazy and evil would rule society THEY ALREADY DO thanks to government subsidy. Eliminate government you eliminate crazy control freaks. Case in point, we have more laws than we can count on a million hands, yet on new years eve retards fire guns in the air and every year someone gets hurt. The cops hide out until the smoke clears. So anarchy happens with or without government. Government can not prevent suffering so all it does is make things worse.

EXcellent Hillbilly, excellent.
Really, when you think about it aren't most laws on the books all about Swindeling?
Murder, deliberately doing bodily harm to another, and theft are obvious.
Swindeling has so many forms and are easy know when you see it.
As it is our law makers have attempted to define each one, and they miss a few fine points and miscreants take advantage of this.
Now if there was just one law against Swindeling and a Jury to decide if indeed that was true for any case that went to court there would be a lot more convictions which would take the wind out of the sales of at least some miscreants.
This would also eliminate the possibility of the criminal getting off on those ridiculous "technicalities".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I will agree with you that I should be using the term "legislation" rather than laws, as it is people who make legislation, not people who make laws, but with that said, you obviously still got what I intended to say.

I also agree that laws are natural - natural rights if you will, and they aren't just for humans, but for all living things. But on that account, no one has a natural right to not be killed and eaten for food or used as a natural resource (since we all must do it), so one must be careful how they choose to define natural laws. For instance, one has a natural right to protest, but an arguement could be made that one also has a natural right to pop them in the mouth for saying something they do not wish to hear (their own form of protest against the protester). Actually, natural rights mean zip if a Creator is taken out of the equation, for one could just claim they have a natural right to survive and eliminate the competition to make their survival easier, if love or God is taken out of the equation, and some don't believe in God (myself not included), so what is a natural law to them? In the end that is pure anarchy when you really think about it, meaning there really are no true natural laws regarding human rights, at least without belief in a Creator and a few other fundamental principles.

So I try not to go to natural law and natural rights anymore - just my personal thing. I do not go so far as to say that all is subjective, as some would, but it is 100% fact that societies and civilizations are based on a social contract between people - an understanding if you will - and that is all there is to it. Where one chooses to believe that understanding comes from is up to them.

Originally posted by derfreebie
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

 

Good Post, and thanks for the non-rant, HIlly! Here's yer star!
I believe there's a quote that ends "Simplify, simplify" makes
so much sense. I believe we don't have to resort to a book burning
in order to get the country back, quite the opposite. All that stuff is
necessary to the infrastructure, as long as who's interpreting the law
has THE PEOPLE's interest as the prime motive. All corruption begins
with selfishness, and that's the diffference between a politician and a
statesman. Might be the whole reason behind that nine percent
approval rating of Congress maybe?
How about this for starters-- term limits, NO PAY NO PENSION, and
when you're done being a public servant, you go home and back to work.
I believe while a person represents me in Washington DC or my state
capital the individual deserves THE SAME WAGE he made before
getting elected, free room and board in the roach hotel, and in total
inverse to the concept now, SPIT THE SUCKER BACK OUT.
And that bottle o'shine's gotta have great polish to it by now... hoo-ee.

How about term limits and part-time work? We don't need guys hanging out everyday to make laws, we only need them now and then to make a decision on things like war. In my opinion, Congress should have the job of a clan of men gathering to make a decision that effects the masses and then go home - that should be it. And our President should be like a tribal chief - taken seriously during times of war and negotation and laughed at and ignored as an insiginificant puppet of the people, at all other times. Our mothers and grandmothers deserve red carpets and fine dining, not some slime-sucking President.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
This will sound quite strange, but just think about it for a while everybody before dismissing it completely.

Laws will be necessary until humans have evolved to the point where we can read each other's minds.

I dread the day other humans can read my mind because I value my individuality, and if my mind is no longer my own, then who am I? If I am you, then I do not exist, neither do you, and the universe just got really lonely.

We don't need to read each others minds, we just need to communicate, and we don't need laws to do that, just general guidelines for language and grammar. And so long as I can communicate with you and you can understand what I meant, and ask me "Do you mean this?", and I can reply...I don't even have to get the rules of the language and the grammar 100% correct.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

For instance, one has a natural right to protest, but an arguement could be made that one also has a natural right to pop them in the mouth for saying something they do not wish to hear (their own form of protest against the protester).

An argument could be made, and has been made for the development and use of nuclear weapons. This doesn't make that argument sound.

All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. In regards to rights, that which I do that causes no harm; I do by right, and any harm another attempts to bring to me, my loved ones, helpless strangers who need defending, or my property will be met by my natural right to defend. Thus, outside of defense, that which causes harm is not a right.

Actually, natural rights mean zip if a Creator is taken out of the equation, for one could just claim they have a natural right to survive and eliminate the competition to make their survival easier, if love or God is taken out of the equation, and some don't believe in God (myself not included), so what is a natural law to them? In the end that is pure anarchy when you really think about it, meaning there really are no true natural laws regarding human rights, at least without belief in a Creator and a few other fundamental principles.

Rights are not predicated on any belief system, they are self evident just as all law is.

So I try not to go to natural law and natural rights anymore - just my personal thing. I do not go so far as to say that all is subjective, as some would, but it is 100% fact that societies and civilizations are based on a social contract between people - an understanding if you will - and that is all there is to it. Where one chooses to believe that understanding comes from is up to them.

It is 100% horse manure that societies and civilizations are based upon a social contract between people. Contracts are binding instruments where all parties involved have made specific agreements and all parties have reasonable expectations of delivery of those agreements. The bogus propaganda of "social contracts" has nothing at all to do with the law of contracts and this so called "social contract" does not in anyway function as an actual contract. It is nothing more than empty rhetoric designed as a meme to convince people that they have some contractual obligation to surrender their own sovereignty.

Originally posted by filosophia
This is why dmocracy doesnt work, 51% rules 49%. I have some issue with your view that if there was anarchy the crazy and evil would rule society THEY ALREADY DO thanks to government subsidy. Eliminate government you eliminate crazy control freaks. Case in point, we have more laws than we can count on a million hands, yet on new years eve retards fire guns in the air and every year someone gets hurt. The cops hide out until the smoke clears. So anarchy happens with or without government. Government can not prevent suffering so all it does is make things worse.

You make a very valid point Filosophia (love the name, btw). The crazy and the evil get control either way, but at least when we have an agreed upon social order which masquerades as the will of "the People" the crazies and the evil have to make it look good or risk exposure and potential punishment.

And I agree, anarchy happens anyway, which is really my point. It is better to just accept that anarchy with a little bit of government is the natural order of things, than to claim one or the other is the way. In my opinion, when you are being asked to choose one or the other, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

First, a quote.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.
Frederick Douglass

As Jon Paul Z pointed out above there are laws, and there is legislation. The problem with most people is that they are more comfortable submitting than resisting. Those that would oppress us very well understand that. But, each of us has the ability to resist. Most choose not to, and often the ones that do are labeled as crazy. This should never dissuade people from insisting upon their rights, but it does. People after all are a social creature.

There will never be an order that does not ultimately oppress if history is our teacher. For one, oppression means different things to different people. Recently, a group felt like Nike shoes being a certain price was a form of oppression. It is no wonder that people can tolerate increasing levels of oppression, they don't know what the hell it is in the first place.

It is up to the individual to draw his/her line in the sand and defend it.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


it is the lie that u choose to b that r in the middle, truth by definition is never in any

that is how any is only any absolute constant positive superiority free fact only it bc true abstraction of objective existing point freedom justification

what i have problem in admitting is how when truth is then lies are

it is logical to reject that fact from one limit right freedom choice to b true

so it is not my business what is all and beyond

but i have problem to admit that fact while it seems to be the explanation of all evil existence

logically when truth is then any is true

but any that do not recognize all truth before meaning to b any existing relativity, any become then liar in meaning existing

this i guess the origin of opposites direct proximities

what is not true while existing is necessarily a lie, while a lie as object existing is exclusively of liar

and liar is originally any true that didnt recognize objective being all truth before meaning being true

so liar could b subjective will but also an objective judgment ending subjects existence

which confirm how conscious is not enough to b true

free sense must subjectively enjoy absolute values

that what explain how liars are mostly not willingly

they are the most mythomans ones

from what they originally never appreciate absolute values

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
An argument could be made, and has been made for the development and use of nuclear weapons. This doesn't make that argument sound.

All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. In regards to rights, that which I do that causes no harm; I do by right, and any harm another attempts to bring to me, my loved ones, helpless strangers who need defending, or my property will be met by my natural right to defend. Thus, outside of defense, that which causes harm is not a right.

There is no such thing as a thing which causes no harm, for starters, because you are not omniscient and you do not know what your actions will cause, but otherwise because life feeds on life, and you must take life to sustain your own whether you like it or not, so if that is your definition of a right... you have none.

Rights are not predicated on any belief system, they are self evident just as all law is.

I disagree. If natural law were self evident it wouldn't need to be discovered, which it is. If rights were self evident there would be no debate on things like abortion and sexuality among nonreligious people - and there is.

It is 100% horse manure that societies and civilizations are based upon a social contract between people. Contracts are binding instruments where all parties involved have made specific agreements and all parties have reasonable expectations of delivery of those agreements. The bogus propaganda of "social contracts" has nothing at all to do with the law of contracts and this so called "social contract" does not in anyway function as an actual contract. It is nothing more than empty rhetoric designed as a meme to convince people that they have some contractual obligation to surrender their own sovereignty.

Horse manure? What word would you prefer? An unwritten agreement? Because regardless of the terminology I use, that is what a society amounts too. It is an agreement between all parties to do things a certain way - period. If you don't believe that, then try doing things a different way and see what happens - you'll be persecuted for violating the agreement (or that will at least be the justification used against you). In fact, the social contract "theory" of philosophy was specifically being refered to in the United States Declaation of Independence.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll agree it serves to cause people to surrender their individual liberty or sovereignty, but it is what it is, nonetheless. No matter how you shake it if you take a Creator who endows your "unalienable rights" out of the equation, natural rights become subjective, and in essence turn to the very horse manure you speak of.

Name any natural right you think you have and leave God out of the equation, and I will show you how you do not have it because it is reduced to nothing more than a subjective concept in your head. For starters, any concept of right and wrong goes completely out the window, as far as an absolute concept goes. A psychotic killer thinks murder is great, most of us think it wrong, but right there when you break it down you have nothing more than the beliefs and opinions of people - all humans. Without God it is only wrong in your head, maybe the majority's head, but it is most certainly not absolutely wrong regardless if you want to call it horse manure or not, because the deciding factors are all equal - they are all human. Animals murder... Male lions slaughter the young when they join a new pride, without question. With that said, and knowing murder is something which occurs all over nature, then without God, how can you say anyone or anything has a right to life, let alone any rights? Without God there is no such thing as abosulte law that is supposedly "self-evident", in fact, that is used as one of the transcendental arguements of monotheism. Not only that, but the very laws of thought break down too - try that on for size.

what do not appreciate absolute value is relative character while what is relative cannot be existing

when wat exist is absolute objectivity so more then absolute

if it is not existing while it is existing then it is an object lie while lie cant b existing alone so it is necessary a free liar potentially that truth is proving any absolutely

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


Wow just made my mind implode then reform only to implode again in slow motion...thanks for that I love reading stuff like that

reply to post by ElOmen


just curious can u describe more ur mind implosion? or is it a figure to mean a particular point that touched urself mind? so what is that extraordinary point that ur mind implode for?