Why Society is a Joke and I am a True Cynic

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

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.

Arguing a lack of omniscience in order to dismiss rights is tantamount to an argument for tyranny. The right to speak freely causes no harm outside of slander and deceit designed to create chaos. The right to publish, outside of libel and malicious intent, causes no harm. The right to worship freely and according to the dictates of ones own consciousness causes no harm until it does, and when it does it is not a right. The right to keep and bear arms causes no harm until it does, and if that harm is outside of lawful defense, then the action of using that gun to cause harm is not a right.

Playing games of semantics with rights has no purpose other than undermining the efficacy of unalienable and natural rights.

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.

That which is not self evident cannot be discovered. The North American Continent was not "discovered" by Christopher Columbus because that continent was not self evident. The moment the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria were in close enough range to discover this continent it was self evident.

Just because there is debate, and there is debate about more than just abortion and sexuality, does not make rights any less self evident. You can hide in a cave all day long and only venture out after sunset then point to the nighttime sky and declare the sun is not self evident all you like. This willful ignorance will not make the sun any less self evident.

Horse manure? What word would you prefer? An unwritten agreement?

What are you doing? Pretending like "social contracts" are written agreements?

Because regardless of the terminology I use, that is what a society amounts too.

Society amounts to an aggregation of people. Nothing more, nothing less. That cluster of people did not first fashion some sort of contractual agreement in order to cluster, they just did and continue to do so. Within that cluster are various types of people with various types of philosophy and various creeds and various degrees of ethics. Some understand that the greatest good to the greatest amount begins by profoundly respecting the unalienable rights of others and other people have no regard for other peoples rights at all. In between are all the gray hats who like to buy into the arguments you are making and like to shrug their shoulders and declare that it is all just too complex to fully understand.

Regardless of where a person aligns, when a person is being murdered, that person knows in the most self evident of ways that their right to life is being denied and disparaged. The person who becomes a victim of theft knows fully and it is self evident that their right to property has been denied and disparaged. The person silenced simply for speaking their mind knows - as it is self evident - that their right to freely speak has been abrogated and derogated. I have seen children less than two years old recognize the self evident right to speak freely and the sting of having such a right suppressed.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion and so are the aggregate posters of Wikipedia, but as a point of law and a matter of fact the term or phrase "social contract" is not mentioned at all in The Declaration of Independence. The word "contract" is used once in that document and is in reference to contracting alliances, but no credence or mention is given to this notion of "social contracts". This term "social contract" is a term used to bully, oppress and berate and nothing more. As evidence, look at your own words above.

Everything is subjective when it is coming from our own viewpoint. One can pretend objectivity by assuring everyone that the sun will rise in the morning and set at night without even a hint of irony. The sun, of course, does not rise, nor does it set, and instead the Earth orbits the sun giving a subjective appearance to we humans of rising and setting suns.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1

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

First I did not read your whole post so might have missed something. The problem is you do not understand the meaning of anarchy and apply the cultural false meaning of it ; chaos. Second I hate to be the one to break it to you but the crazies have already taken over and forced thier slave society on us.

We have a prime example of an anarchist society flourishing for 1000 years in relative peace and freedom. It was one of the most sophisticated societies of its time, we could learn a lot from them. Of course the current crazies who run today's society have obscured and rewritten history to thier benefit and our detriment.... Remember Society existed before government...

www.mises.org...

And here is what one of our founding fathers had to say about government and society

Society Is A Blessing Government Is Evil

reply to post by hawkiye


bravo hawkie excelllent point lol let them do their long writings we exist too shortly

anarchy like the source of atheism is a system concept negatively from the knowledge honest realizations of what is wrong definitely

when u know that existence is wrong through the concept of god existence oness, as it cant b then any objective fact so no existence, u become then atheist for proning atheism as the nowrong honest base recognition of anyone honest

it is hilarious what they conclude from knowing smthg, they become more, how knowing smthg make the knower more, smthg is then existing more not what happened to know its fact

so anarchy is of that same idea, knowing that monarchy or absolute resolutions is wrong, then the conclusion is to stay relative out of absolute perspectives, from knowing that evil is always of forcing absolute facts so denying truth value facts, anarchists are what know that objective value are exclusively to truth facts results, to constancy being the exclusive positive source

so the justification behind the idea of anarchy superiority to all powerships systems, is what anarchy kill evil
since evil cant b but absolutely, and if there is no evil then free negative or living wills so wrong will be always relative even if it could be more existing but only of being clearly relative to its facts, what dont mean it can easily step out of its fact
evil is to what force rights for living or negative objects as a condition to exist while right exist without meaning it so it is not a condition but fundamental evil abuse ways to exist constantly from proving being superior to true superiority
evil is oness that kill objective true value for objective wills value, so objective would b an object possession to his owner that did it like a property right, surely for cheapest and easiest way to fulfill the need to justify its superiority in being constant free fact existing or sense

while anarchy in concept is kind of system that admit freedom existence, when what is free is by definition constant so in anarchy reference superiority justification wont b needed

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie1

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.

Let me apologise for being a little vague, but I was kinda tired etc etc. I don't mean some sort of borglike hive mind. I mean more to 'know what each other is thinking'. Call me crazy but I believe one day humans will be empathetic enough to each other and the world around us that we will be able to sense each others thoughts to a degree, and maybe even communicate telepathically. I do not desire, nor do I believe it will ever happen that we will ever lose our individuality while we exist on the physical plane. Indeed it is my belief that the physical plane exists purely to maintain our individuality and facilitate our separate identities and individual incarnations.

Ever walk into a room where someone is angry or upset and sense it before you've even heard anything or seen anyones faces....? Kinda like that but amplified 100 fold. Let me emphasise the word empathy here. For I do not believe we will have this sort of telepathy until the general empathy within humanity is at much greater levels. And when we have that for starters people willl understand the ramifications of the actions in a much greater way. And for 2nds if someone is guilty of some wrong doing it will just be 'clear' who it was through this 'telepathy' and also through the guilt they broadcast from their minds (which hopefully they feel much more through the increased levels of empathy within humanity and the greater understanding of the general ramifications of their actions).

The reason their are so many laws is because so many people walk around today in some sort of zombified state with no real empathy for their fellow human beings. The only break they have from that is attempting to get a slightly bigger slice of the pie, and due to the lack of empathy many do not care how they get it. Hence the need for laws.

I also think one day we will be living in a cashless world where automated machines do most of the menial tasks doing away with the need to 'have a job' just to earn a living. And I believe once the cash is gone, a lot of bs laws will go with it.

Yeah I know I'm going off on quite a tangent here but basically until there is some major shift in the way society thinks and operates as a whole, laws for better or worse are necessary to keep order. And there are just too many people who do not give a sh*t these days not to have some sort of regulations to keep that order.

Everything that is happening within the world at present is unfolding exactly how it is meant to happen though, but do not get me wrong, I completely agree with you about living in a nanny state, but unfortunately the world is not yet ready for anarchy by any stretch of the imagination.