Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If you say “I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing” that means you are against a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups, which in view of the huge population we have would be counterproductive.

Does it?

I'm usually always very skeptical when someone tells me, "If you say A, you mean B." My first thought is usually, "If I meant B, I'd say B. I meant A." But, to be fair, sometimes A does equal B or otherwise necessarily entails B.

I definitely don't believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' or other moralizing.

But am I "against a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups"?

I suppose that depends on the meaning of "against". What do you mean by the word "against" in that context? As you use the term, what would it mean for me to be 'against' something?

I think that our biggest problem stems from the tendency to exclude, not only physically, but also mentally, especially to the point where we deny people existence, or affiliation to the human race. This goes beyond disagreeing with people, or struggling to find what is really wholesome and beneficial for all, but is rather the end of discussion and debate, the rejection of dissent, and an authoritarian intervention, which we see continually happening throughout history.

Wisely said. I generally agree.

If authoritarian rule is what you mean by being unfit to govern, I agree, but what does govern mean?

In the political sense of the words in terms of political freedom and government, I think my view on that is best summed up by my pinned tweet. In short, to politically govern another in this context is to commit non-defensive violence against them.

It may be worth my noting that in the OP (and the beginning of my book), I use political freedom (a.k.a. self-government) merely as a simple analogy for my broader spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline).

The point is though, that the tendency to exclude people for non-conformity has continually been an oppressive attribute of society, which we can clearly see in the treatment of homosexuals up until it was decriminalised only 50 years ago. There are many other ways in which people didn’t conform or dissented from popular opinion, and many suffered, even though some were lauded for their work after their deaths. It is this tendency that goes beyond discrimination, beyond distinguishing differences, and denies the “other” a place in society, where governing takes a turn for the worse.

At the same time, malignant tendencies in society must not be allowed to take their toll. Traditionally, women and children were said to be protected, but even here, it was certain women and children, and those in the work houses or on the streets were excluded. But those elements of society that prey on others must be discriminated and restricted [...]

I agree. I fully support using defensive force against the perpetrators of non-defensive violence (e.g. murders, rapists, enslavers, etc.) to protect people from that non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery), and to provide civil restitution as much as needed (e.g. forcing an arson to pay the financial cost to repair the house they set on fire, or forcing a mugger who shoots somebody to pay for that person's medical bills, etc.).

[Stoppelmann]

If you say “I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing” that means you are against a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups, which in view of the huge population we have would be counterproductive.

Does it?

I'm usually always very skeptical when someone tells me, "If you say A, you mean B." My first thought is usually, "If I meant B, I'd say B. I meant A." But, to be fair, sometimes A does equal B or otherwise necessarily entails B.

I definitely don't believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' or other moralizing.

But am I "against a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups"?

I suppose that depends on the meaning of "against". What do you mean by the word "against" in that context? As you use the term, what would it mean for me to be 'against' something?

The word “should” is used to say or ask what is the correct or best thing to do, used to show when something is likely or expected, used after "so that" and "in order that" to show purpose. If we think something is correct, expected, or purposeful, we say “should”. The word “ought” is used to say that it is necessary or desirable to perform the action expressed, or that it is probable or expected, so it has a similar meaning.

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force, so this really contradicts your not believing in the use of those words. Therefore you have expressed a judgment about what is morally right and wrong, which is to “moralize.” If you mean by the use of the word to make judgments about right and wrong in a way that does not consider other people’s ideas or opinions, then I’ve covered that and we are in agreement.

Being “against” something means disagreeing with it, but you can of course use against to refer to negative, hostile, or opposing reactions to situations, beliefs, people, events, etc., but that would misconstrue the sense in which I used it, especially in the context of the rest of my statement.

If authoritarian rule is what you mean by being unfit to govern, I agree, but what does govern mean?

In the political sense of the words in terms of political freedom and government, I think my view on that is best summed up by my pinned tweet. In short, to politically govern another in this context is to commit non-defensive violence against them.

It may be worth my noting that in the OP (and the beginning of my book), I use political freedom (a.k.a. self-government) merely as a simple analogy for my broader spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline).

You say in that pinned tweet, “If you support peace and oppose all non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.), retweet this, and I will follow you,” which we have ascertained to have agreement on, but from the above, you can see that “I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" is a different statement, which robs you of the means to oppose non-defensive violence.

Your statement “Political philosophy mostly only interests me to the extent that it acts as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, self-government can act as an analogue of self-discipline, and self-employment can act as an analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline” is applicable to each of us personally, and I agree with you on a personal level, the problem is that there are many people who do not. That means, to oppose any non-defensive violence that they perpetrate, we can’t just appeal to their self-discipline, but must intervene. Thereby we install a standard and, in the interest of possible victims, act on non-compliance.

If, as you say, you are hypothetically asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", you cannot answer. Does this mean that we resign to the fact that some people will not respect our standard, and accept that there will be victims?

You say, “I would still rather fight a good-hearted act utilitarian to the death to defend the mean doctor from slavery, or to defend the fat man from murder, than violently enslave a doctor myself or violently murder a fat man myself,” but that isn’t the issue. You are still speaking about an intervention by “fighting to the death,” but do you not need some standard by which you deem it right or wrong? People have ended up on the wrong side through spontaneous action in favour of one side, only to find that the other side is the victim, but was on a winning streak in its defence.

Of course, there are many things I agree with in your OP, but the implementation of such sentiment requires an adherence to a standard, be it my own by which I am living my life, or a standard agreed on by society, which must be implemented and acted upon. The fact that human beings are not so self-disciplined that they could so do without intervention by the state shows that it is important to have the judicial, the executive and the legislative. The administration of justice, the execution of the laws, and the branch of government that is charged with making laws. It isn’t perfect, but in view of the complexity of the task, it’s the best we have.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm usually always very skeptical when someone tells me, "If you say A, you mean B." My first thought is usually, "If I meant B, I'd say B. I meant A." But, to be fair, sometimes A does equal B or otherwise necessarily entails B.

This is a chronic irritation for autistic people. Allistic* people very often say words that they do not mean. They sometimes say A when they mean B. This is perfectly 'normal', I am informed.

* — allistic means 'not-autistic'.

Consider: "Hello, how are you?" If you respond to the question — "How are you?" — you are instantly rejected. Because, idiomatically, the phrase "how are you?" means "hello", and nothing more. So the original greeting was "Hello hello", as odd as that seems, and only weirdos respond to the question.

You have run up against an inconvenience of the way in which allistic people typically communicate, relying on implication, and sometimes innuendo, with a generous helping of reading between the lines. These follies are never noticed or discussed because, well, everyone communicates that way, don't they? [Yes, they do; everyone except autistic people, but they're quite a small minority, so they don't really count.]

People often do not say what they mean; often they say what they do not mean.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Stoppelmann,

Thank you for your reply!

The word “should” is used to say or ask what is the correct or best thing to do, used to show when something is likely or expected, used after "so that" and "in order that" to show purpose. If we think something is correct, expected, or purposeful, we say “should”. The word “ought” is used to say that it is necessary or desirable to perform the action expressed, or that it is probable or expected, so it has a similar meaning.

That may be how you use the two terms, but I doubt it accurately reflects how everyone uses them. Moreover, I have always considered 'should' and 'ought' to be exact synonyms. It's interesting that it seems from your description above you use the terms as non-synonyms to refer to two different things. In any case, I invite you to share these two particular definitions in my old topic from 2008: What Moral Claims Can Mean

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force ...

I did not and do not agree with that.

Any statement of the structure "X should have happened but didn't" or "X should have been the case but isn't" is a statement with which I would disagree, or at least misunderstand or fail to understand.

I wrote in my book, In It Together, in the chapter titled, "Suggestion Five — Let go of resentment, hate, and
unforgiveness towards others, including your past self. Accept their choices, and accept them as they are."

Insofar as the word ‘should’ even has meaning, then we must say that the past is exactly as it should be, everything that happened should have happened, and everything that should happen will happen.

But even that's really an understatement. The 'insofar' qualification in the above sentence is a big one. More generally and truly, I would typically think of 'should' and 'ought' as not having any real meaning and not referring to anything real.

That is, insofar as an 'ought'-statement isn't being merely confusing used to equivocally--and poorly--express an is-statement. I believe in is, but I don't believe in ought. I believe in is (including has been and will be), but I don't in should (including should have been or should be).

Therefore you have expressed a judgment about what is morally right and wrong, which is to “moralize.”

I did not and would not.

This is my 4,965th post on these forums. I wrote 4 non-fiction books, including my most recent 206-page book, In It Together.

I challenge you to find one time I sincerely said a sentence like:

"It is immoral to do X."

"It is morally wrong to do Y."

"X should have happened but didn't."

"X ought have happened but didn't."

"You should do X."

"The government ought to do Y."

"I can do X, and should be doing X, but am choosing not to do X."

"I have the choice between A and B, and ought to choose B, but I am choosing A."

"You have the choice between A and B, and ought to choose B, but you are choosing A."

I don't say such things, and I don't agree with such things when they are said.

To me, such statements at best come across as equivocal nonsense; But, if they are taken seriously as sincere non-equivocal actual moralistic language, then they refer to something I adamantly believe does not exist.

I would quicker sincerely say that I believe magic invisible unicorns in the sky want you to do something or do not than say it is "immoral" or "morally good". That's because I would quicker believe that magic invisible unicorns exist than that "moral" values exist (e.g. shoulds and oughts).

If you say “I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing” that means you are against a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups, which in view of the huge population we have would be counterproductive.

[Emphasis added.]

Does it?

I'm usually always very skeptical when someone tells me, "If you say A, you mean B." My first thought is usually, "If I meant B, I'd say B. I meant A." But, to be fair, sometimes A does equal B or otherwise necessarily entails B.

I definitely don't believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' or other moralizing.

But am I "against a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups"?

I suppose that depends on the meaning of "against". What do you mean by the word "against" in that context? As you use the term, what would it mean for me to be 'against' something?

Being “against” something means disagreeing with it,

Thank you for the clarification.

In that case, no, I am neither 'against' nor not 'against' a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups.

I only agree or disagree with meaningful propositions. If I 'agree' with the proposition, that means I believe it is true. If I disagree with the proposition, that means I believe it is false.

So, for example, if asked if I agree with bananas, I would say that I neither agree nor disagree with bananas because bananas are a physical thing not a proposition.

If asked whether I agree with or disagree with hurricanes, I would say that I neither agree with nor disagree with hurricanes because hurricanes are an event that happens not a proposition.

“I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" is a different statement, which robs you of the means to oppose non-defensive violence.

As someone who is trained in boxing and jiu jitsu and who is a registered gun owner, I can assure you that it does not rob me of it. In the luckily unlikely event that someone came to my house and attempted to rape my kids or I, we would have an unfortunately gruesome illustration of that fact.

Many people who talk a lot about what they "should" do, whatever that mean,s e.g. "I should go on a diet", either don't do at all, or whatever they do, it's not that. People who are going to do XYZ, don't typically say they "should" do it, "ought" to do it, or will "try" to do it. They say they will do it, or they just do it.

As someone who has hired and fired a lot of people over the years, I can tell you I won't hire the person who tells me they 'should' do it, 'ought' to do it, or will 'try' to do it, when I can hire a person to do it who says they will do it.

If all someone is willing to actually do to prevent murder is say "it shouldn't be happening", whatever that means, then that person does not really oppose murder at all in my book.

There's a lot of people who would say that children "shouldn't" be starving to death, whatever that means. My literal book has quite a few comments about the fact that children do starve to death, about 10,000 per day, and what people actually do or don't do about it.

By letting go of 'should be' and 'ought to be', and of 'should do' and 'ought to do', it's a lot easier to see what people actually do. Or don't do. Which sometimes is anything.

That means, to oppose any non-defensive violence that they perpetrate, we can’t just appeal to their self-discipline, but must intervene.

Yes, I agree.

As I use the terms, if we say we oppose non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.) but don't actually do anything to stop it from happening, then we were lying when we said we oppose it.

Actions speak louder than words. In fact, I've never even seen a dog bark and bite at the same time.

I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing. So if hypothetically I'm asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", I cannot answer. There are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy, only cans and cannots; and then from ‘can’ there is only do and do not. In my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do, and only time and happenstance will tell if my answer is honest and true.

If, as you say, you are hypothetically asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", you cannot answer. Does this mean that we resign to the fact that some people will not respect our standard, and accept that there will be victims?

No, that is not what I mean. Thank you for asking and checking.

In short, I would use defensive force to combat non-defensive violence. For instance, I would kill a murderer attempting to commit murder, if lethal force the only way to stop the murderer from committing the murder.

Beyond that, more elaborate I think I explained my thoughts about that topic in the OP in the following part, but if not please do let me know a bit how you would like me to clarify or elaborate on the following from the OP:

But please don't think that me giving those hypothetical examples of the utilitarian benefits of the current violent plutocracy suddenly backing off so that we can enjoy the wonderful fruits of a much more peaceful society are meant to imply shoulds or oughts.

Nope.

Rather, we each have to choose for ourselves what we ourselves will do. Our freedom of spirit precedes and supersedes that of any politics or fleshy happenstance. I must choose for myself whether I murder, rape, and enslave others or not. I must choose for myself whether or not I vote in favor of murder, rape, slavery, or other non-defensive violence. When the Nazis come after the Jews, I must choose for myself whether or not I break the law and hide Jews in my attic or follow the law and turn them in. When I am given the choice to commit murder for a Nazi to prove my loyalty, and thereby live another day, or have myself and my whole family murdered by the Nazis as punishment for my peaceful civil disobedience, I must choose whether I will murder one to save multiple including myself or die as a defiant free stubborn peaceful man. Live as a murderer or die? If that choice is presented to me, I choose death, or at least I hope to have the courage and self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) to honor the promise I have made here and bravely choose death for me and my family instead of becoming a murderer, rapist, or enslaver.

The reality of humans isn't that they are bad at designing diets, but that they are bad at sticking to their own diets, at maintaining honest spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) in the heat of fleshy discomfort and in the face of those or that which would say, "eat the cake; break your diet and eat the cake". But sometimes it's not cake that a voice in your head that is not you says to eat; sometimes it is not a delicious drink of alcohol that a voice in your head that is not you says to drink; sometimes the voice is from an external Nazi, the politics aren't an analogue, and the cake is an innocent person you could violently murder, rape, or enslave. I chose to say no. I choose to disobey, to disobey both the Nazi with a gun to my head and the egoic voices in my own head pretending to be me. If you have ever been on a tough diet, you won't doubt me when I say it may be the latter that it takes more self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) to disobey. I've never been addicted to drugs, but I imagine it too may be tougher spirtually than having a literal Nazi put a gun to your head and telling you to either murder one person or watch your whole family die as punishment for your disobedience.

Each person is stuck choosing for themselves.

To me, it's the one who says, "I should be dieting" but who isn't dieting who has resigned themselves. The person who says, "I ought not be drinking this," as they lift the glass to their mouth and pour the liquid down their throat, is the one who has resigned themselves. In fact, those kind of examples epitomize and illustrate the absurdity of the concept of 'shoulds', 'oughts', and 'morality'.

I believe in doing. I believe in the concept of do or do not.

By letting go of the nonsense of 'shoulds' and 'oughts', it is much easier to not resign myself to not doing what I can do.

You say, “I would still rather fight a good-hearted act utilitarian to the death to defend the mean doctor from slavery, or to defend the fat man from murder, than violently enslave a doctor myself or violently murder a fat man myself,” but that isn’t the issue. You are still speaking about an intervention by “fighting to the death,” but do you not need some standard by which you deem it right or wrong?

Thank you for your question.

The short direct answer is that, no, I don't need such a standard.

More elaborately, one reason I don't need such a standard is because (I believe) such a standard is nonsense, and I don't need nonsense.

As explained earlier in this post, I don't believe that ideas like 'true' and 'false', 'correct' and 'incorrect', and by extension 'right' and 'wrong' and 'agree' and 'disagree' apply to anything but propositions.

A banana cannot be right or wrong because a banana is not a proposition (i.e. a meaningful statement with an objective truth value to which the law of the excluded middle applies).

Likewise, a hurricane cannot be right or wrong, or true or false, because a hurricane is an event not a proposition.

As I see the terms generally, ought-statements are not propositions. So when presented with a statement like "X should be" or "X should not be", I can neither agree nor disagree, and generally see it as nonsense. At best, I see them as referring to something I don't believe exists.

In contrast, is-statements can be propositions. Is-statements include statements like "Dogs are mammals", "Martin Luther King Jr was arrested 29 times," "The moon is made of cheddar cheese", "tomorrow I will do my laundry". Those kind of statements are true or false (i.e. right or wrong), and thus I can agree or disagree with them, based on whether I believe they are true or false, based on the empirical evidence available to me.

The fact that human beings are not so self-disciplined that they could so do without intervention by the state shows that it is important to have [the state].

With respect and love, the above sentence seems contradictory to me.

As I understand it a "state" in this context is just some humans.

So it kind of seems contradictory to me in parallel to how it would be contradictory for one to say, "Because they are so selfish, fickle, irrational, and impulsive, humans are unfit to govern themselves, thus they must be governed by humans."

What I like less than being governed by a human is being governed by a mob of them.

I am not a fan of nanny states.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Because all the do-gooders in the world whether they’re doing good for others or doing it for themselves are troublemakers: on the basis of 'kindly let me help you or you will drown,' said the monkey putting the fish safely up a tree."
- Alan Watts

My motto is live and let live. When violent humans come to take me from the proverbial water and put me in the tree, I hope to have the courage to say, "go govern yourself, and keep your hands off me!"

I shared a similar sentiment in my other topic, "Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror.":

There's no shortage of unhappy people wanting to give you advice, if not put a literal or metaphorical gun to your head and force you to take their literally miserable advice and live by their literally miserable standards. Many would rule the world because they cannot rule themselves, at least not in a way that lets them be truly happy with inner peace.

Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror.

[Stoppelmann]

Hi, Stoppelmann,

Thank you for your reply!

You are welcome, I’m here to clear up what I don’t understand, and so such exchanges are beneficial.

That may be how you use the two terms, but I doubt it accurately reflects how everyone uses them. Moreover, I have always considered 'should' and 'ought' to be exact synonyms. It's interesting that it seems from your description above you use the terms as non-synonyms to refer to two different things. In any case, I invite you to share these two particular definitions in my old topic from 2008: What Moral Claims Can Mean

I am a Brit, and even though I speak German during the day, I have a tendency to use the language as I learnt to, beginning some 68 years ago. It could be that I tend to use a language that has since moved on, being in the German environment for over 45 years, but looking at a dictionary, that seems to be consensus, but perhaps my dictionary is as old as I am. My sister once said that when she listened to me, she thought, “nobody speaks like he does anymore!”

I looked at the link to 2008 you gave but would have to reply to that in another post, because I have several questions about what you said there as well, but first I would have to look at whether others pointed the same things out. One general comment to this post is that I advise you to not allow single words trigger you, which is something that I had to learn the hard way, and alienated me from my father, which took a long time to heal.

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force ...

I did not and do not agree with that.

Any statement of the structure "X should have happened but didn't" or "X should have been the case but isn't" is a statement with which I would disagree, or at least misunderstand or fail to understand.

I found your reply to my observation interesting, because the whole answer you gave contradicted what you said. You may have written the words you quoted in your book, but other statements here contradict that. First of all, “there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force” was a bit provocative, but as we go through your answer, we’ll come to what I am talking about. You see, you immediately go on the defensive, and try to impress me with what you have done:

This is my 4,965th post on these forums. I wrote 4 non-fiction books, including my most recent 206-page book, In It Together.

Your challenge I find completely inappropriate, because it is a reaction to thoughtful inquiry, which doesn’t warrant such an “adamant” reaction. You must be aware that all traditions of the world have principles, standards, or guidelines, even if it is only the golden rule, by which we guide our children and align our lives, and which help us notice where we are ethically, and whether we are in fact contradicting what we think we believe. I can’t imagine that you would think that throughout the millennia of developing civilisation, everybody was wrong and only you have grasped the truth.

You say that you are “neither 'against' nor not 'against' a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. That seems to me to be sitting on the fence and allowing others to sort out the problems of civilisation. But then along comes the contradiction I have mentioned above:

As someone who is trained in boxing and jiu jitsu and who is a registered gun owner, I can assure you that it does not rob me of it. In the luckily unlikely event that someone came to my house and attempted to rape my kids or I, we would have an unfortunately gruesome illustration of that fact.

That sounds very much like the “defensive force” that you so adamantly denied, and which you even fill out with more detail, suggesting that my proposal had indeed triggered you. In fact, I’m not sure what you seek to achieve with what you follow up with. Yes, there are people who procrastinate and use the words “ought” and “should” to describe what they think would be better off doing, but I don’t think that I suggested anything like that. I, too, was an employer for many years, and in interviews for jobs, I wouldn’t have focused on single words, except to clarify that I am enabling them to do the job.

Instead of being semantic about such issues, I tend to help people understand what they are saying, like now. I think that you may type too quickly and fail to reflect on what you have said. The next example was once again about “defensive force”:

That means, to oppose any non-defensive violence that they perpetrate, we can’t just appeal to their self-discipline, but must intervene.

Yes, I agree.

Intervention suggests intention, which comes from a clear idea of what is to be achieved, and is usually found in a concept of how people should behave. The difference between the ideal and reality brings about the terminology, “should”. It is a question of available vocabulary, and look in the thesaurus and you will find these alternatives: would, must, have to, be supposed to, ought to, had better, be duty bound. Not all of them fit in the sentence I used it in.

As I use the terms, if we say we oppose non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.) but don't actually do anything to stop it from happening, then we were lying when we said we oppose it.

Actions speak louder than words. In fact, I've never even seen a dog bark and bite at the same time.

Hmm, you do realise that there are multitudes of people who are not able to act on what they believe in? And then there is the question of opportunity because there are numerous principles that I support, but I would be hard-pressed for time if I had to support them all actively. I think that what disturbs me on your way of expression is that it is demanding. It is figuratively a raised finger, or at time a threatening gesture (“unfortunately gruesome”), and suggests a morally superior position, which again contradicts your being against moralizing. You may not use the words you oppose, but from the little I have read from you, I get this feeling quite firmly.

There was this example, again of “defensive force,” of which you said:

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force ...

I did not and do not agree with that.

If, as you say, you are hypothetically asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", you cannot answer. Does this mean that we resign to the fact that some people will not respect our standard, and accept that there will be victims?

No, that is not what I mean. Thank you for asking and checking.

In short, I would use defensive force to combat non-defensive violence. For instance, I would kill a murderer attempting to commit murder, if lethal force the only way to stop the murderer from committing the murder.

You can’t just oppose the word “ought” and ignore the full sentence, because together they propose a statement. By denying what I suggested, you then go on to contradict yourself. This is the problem, and it is a bit like going through a book deleting the words you don’t like. You then end up with an incoherent mess. As it is, our conversation is more about understanding what you mean or don’t mean, rather than the issues that are important to you. For me, I found that it sounded more like a rant than a proposal for action.

The short direct answer is that, no, I don't need such a standard.

More elaborately, one reason I don't need such a standard is because (I believe) such a standard is nonsense, and I don't need nonsense.

As explained earlier in this post, I don't believe that ideas like 'true' and 'false', 'correct' and 'incorrect', and by extension 'right' and 'wrong' and 'agree' and 'disagree' apply to anything but propositions.

If you want to lay out a course of action, which is really explaining your intention, and enable people to participate, you need certain words, certain ideas, and propositions. If you want to put forward something considered by yourself or by general consent as approved model of society, that is a standard. It is a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment, whether you have achieved a goal or not.

As I understand it a "state" in this context is just some humans.

So it kind of seems contradictory to me in parallel to how it would be contradictory for one to say, "Because they are so selfish, fickle, irrational, and impulsive, humans are unfit to govern themselves, thus they must be governed by humans."

What I like less than being governed by a human is being governed by a mob of them.

This is quite ridiculous, because you might as well say I don’t like the air I breathe because it tastes bad. You can’t get around breathing, so you look for better air to breathe.

Similarly, without a government, you have mob rule. We see it everywhere where a government is overthrown or hasn’t been installed (Wild West). Chaos ensues until the mob choose someone to create some order. The basic idea of the art of government is to make and implement policies by which some semblance of order emerges. This is based on guiding principles that are deemed suitable for the purpose. You can call it what you like, but if you haven’t installed order, you can arm yourself to the teeth and wait for someone to try and take what you have away from you. That may be the American dream, but it isn’t the European one.

It has also not been the idea that has driven civilisation over millennia. Admittedly, every attempt to create some order has its problems, but if you love your children, you can't always be there to protect them, and so you need an Order in which they can live safely. Your idea seems to be to say, "If it's not perfect, I'll do without!" Well, good luck with that.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

That may be how you use the two terms, but I doubt it accurately reflects how everyone uses them. Moreover, I have always considered 'should' and 'ought' to be exact synonyms. It's interesting that it seems from your description above you use the terms as non-synonyms to refer to two different things. In any case, I invite you to share these two particular definitions in my old topic from 2008: What Moral Claims Can Mean

I am a Brit, and even though I speak German during the day, I have a tendency to use the language as I learnt to, beginning some 68 years ago. It could be that I tend to use a language that has since moved on, being in the German environment for over 45 years, but looking at a dictionary, that seems to be consensus,

Does the dictionary you checked really only have one definition for the word 'should' and one definition for the word 'ought'? If so, what dictionary did you check?

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force ...

I did not and do not agree with that.

Any statement of the structure "X should have happened but didn't" or "X should have been the case but isn't" is a statement with which I would disagree, or at least misunderstand or fail to understand.

[...]

As someone who is trained in boxing and jiu jitsu and who is a registered gun owner, I can assure you that it does not rob me of it. In the luckily unlikely event that someone came to my house and attempted to rape my kids or I, we would have an unfortunately gruesome illustration of that fact.

That sounds very much like the “defensive force” that you so adamantly denied

I never "adamantly denied" defensive force.

That means, to oppose any non-defensive violence that they perpetrate, we can’t just appeal to their self-discipline, but must intervene.

Yes, I agree.

Intervention suggests intention, which comes from a clear idea of what is to be achieved, and is usually found in a concept of how people should behave.

The fact that X 'suggests' Y (to you) and is (allegedly) usually found in a concept of Z, does not mean that when I say X I mean Z.


Similarly, here is what I wrote in my first reply to you in this thread:

I'm usually always very skeptical when someone tells me, "If you say A, you mean B." My first thought is usually, "If I meant B, I'd say B. I meant A." But, to be fair, sometimes A does equal B or otherwise necessarily entails B.

***

The difference between the ideal and reality brings about the terminology, “should”.

Depending on how one uses the terms, I either (1) don't believe there is a difference between the ideal and true reality, or (2) that the very would-be concept of 'ideal' is nonsense.

I would be happy to discuss this in much more detail in my other topic more dedicated to that specific issue (my disbelief in oughts/shoulds/morality/etc.): There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

As I use the terms, if we say we oppose non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.) but don't actually do anything to stop it from happening, then we were lying when we said we oppose it.

Actions speak louder than words. In fact, I've never even seen a dog bark and bite at the same time.

Hmm, you do realise that there are multitudes of people who are not able to act on what they believe in?

If you are asking me if I realize there are many people who do believe in the superstition of morality (i.e. shoulds and oughts), then the answer is yes.

If you are asking me if I realize there are many people who do not practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which one cannot control, then the answer is yes.

Indeed, if one rephrases things I've said into things that are commonly believed, one will drastically misunderstand me.

I believe many things to be true that most people do not believe to be true.

I believe many things to be false that most people do not believe to be false.

I think that what disturbs me on your way of expression is that it is demanding. It is figuratively a raised finger [...] and suggests a morally superior position, which again contradicts your being against moralizing.

It might somehow suggest that to you but it certainly isn't what I mean.

Insofar as you read between my lines and/or interpret my words as meaning the exact opposite of what I am flat-out saying, then of course (1) your interpretation of what I mean will contract what I am actually saying, and more importantly (2) you will have misunderstood me.

I meant what I said. What I actually said.

If I was "demanding" you do something, I would say I demand it, and I would use the word demand.

I give this now as merely a friendly helpful tip that you can take or leave as you wish, and I give it assuming you already read my book In It Together in full at least once: If you are feeling demanded by yourself, by my, or in any other sense, or (and that is an or not an and) find yourself reading such demanding-ness between the lines when reading my words, other people words, or listening to the words generated by your human mind in your own inner monologue, then I recommend you re-read the chapter in book titled, "Suggestion Ten — Let go of restlessness and overcommitment. Do less, better."

I find the idea of worrying about what governments 'should' do or 'ought' to do as being demanding, not the letting go of shoulds and oughts, not the being liberated of 'shoulds' and 'oughts'.

I find the worrying about or judging of what one cannot control to be that which would feel demanding, not the letting go of such worries and judgement.

I find letting go of judgemental moralizing and instead focusing squarely and can and cannot and from can do and do not to be liberating,easy, undemanding, freeing, and graceful.

You may not use the words you oppose, but from the little I have read from you, I get this feeling quite firmly.

Then you have misunderstood me. To understand me, I suggest you avoid reading between the lines, and assume that I am using the direct straightforward honest assertive communication.

Again, I repeat what I wrote to you at the beginning of my first reply to you in this topic:

I'm usually always very skeptical when someone tells me, "If you say A, you mean B." My first thought is usually, "If I meant B, I'd say B. I meant A." But, to be fair, sometimes A does equal B or otherwise necessarily entails B.

***

For me, I found that it sounded more like a rant than a proposal for action.

Proposal for action?

What do you mean by proposal for action? And why would I want to make one?

Action by whom?

Please do keep in mind my deep value spiritually for spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline), which can be understood using the analogy from petty human politics that is political freedom (a.k.a. self-government).

Your idea seems [to me] to be to say, "If it's not perfect, I'll do without!"

Appearances can be deceiving. If that's how it seems to you, then you have misunderstood me.

You can call it what you like, but if you haven’t installed order, you can arm yourself to the teeth and wait for someone to try and take what you have away from you. That may be the American dream, but it isn’t the European one.

Indeed. To that, I simply re-post the last paragraph from the OP:

To paraphrase yet more thinkers who are probably wiser than I am, in this case Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Emiliano Zapata, I believe liberty and non-violence are the mother, not the daughter, of order, and regardless I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

***

What I like less than being governed by a human is being governed by a mob of them.

This is quite ridiculous, because you might as well say I don’t like the air I breathe because it tastes bad. You can’t get around breathing, so you look for better air to breathe.

I suppose you are right about that, in that as book discusses in detail I adamantly practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting what I cannot control (i.e. what I cannot change).

If I am choosing where to move, and all else the same, one place nicer smelling air to breath, then I would presumably choose to move the place with the nicer smelling air.

Likewise, if I am choosing where to move, and all else the same, one place has a lot more political freedom than the other, I would choose the one with more political freedom.

But, insofar as being violently victimized by other humans is unavoidable, then like finding myself being beaten down by an unavoidable hurricane, the choice is simply to weather the storm: endure with inner peace, spiritual freedom, and full unconditional of that which I cannot control (i.e. that which I cannot change).

They can take my political freedom, but they can never take my spiritual freedom.

[Stoppelmann]

Does the dictionary you checked really only have one definition for the word 'should' and one definition for the word 'ought'? If so, what dictionary did you check?

It doesn’t make much difference, but from dictionary.com I find this:
should
auxiliary verb
1. simple past tense of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.

The word shall is an auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or (Archaic) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or (Archaic) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking.
1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2. will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it.
3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.
4. (used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations): Shall we go?

Of course, in our context, we are talking about how the word is used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency and the present tense in laws and directives, etc., which is how I used the word – and as far as I can see, most people do. However, you say you disagree with the validity of such principles, although in context you show you do.

You actually quote an example of a contradiction:

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force ...

I did not and do not agree with that.

The use of block letters shows an extra emphasis, or as I said (using a word you use) adamant disagreement.

You quote yourself saying:

As someone who is trained in boxing and jiu jitsu and who is a registered gun owner, I can assure you that it does not rob me of it. In the luckily unlikely event that someone came to my house and attempted to rape my kids or I, we would have an unfortunately gruesome illustration of that fact.

And agreeing with me here:

That means, to oppose any non-defensive violence that they perpetrate, we can’t just appeal to their self-discipline, but must intervene.

Yes, I agree.

My point is that your statements are not consistent, and perhaps triggered by my use of the word “ought,” although my use of that word is a simple expression of a conceived duty or moral obligation to react to non-defensive violence. I can’t see how you get around the fact that you would react to someone doing what they shouldn’t, or how you can say you have and need no standard of behaviour. The example given portrays a disparity between the ideal and the reality, to which you have designated a standard reaction, for which you are prepared.

The difference between the ideal and reality brings about the terminology, “should”.

Depending on how one uses the terms, I either (1) don't believe there is a difference between the ideal and true reality, or (2) that the very would-be concept of 'ideal' is nonsense.

Ideally, no-one would threaten you or your children, but if in reality someone did, they would be contravening that ideal, which you would expect them to uphold, which in turn would warrant a violent intervention on your part. Another word for warrant is justify, because they both come from the legislation and execution of justice, which differentiate between murder and self-defence.

In fact, you double-down on this:

As I use the terms, if we say we oppose non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.) but don't actually do anything to stop it from happening, then we were lying when we said we oppose it.

Actions speak louder than words. In fact, I've never even seen a dog bark and bite at the same time.

If you say you oppose a certain behaviour, you have an ideal or principle, which is the opposite to or contradicts that behaviour. There is a behaviour that others should adhere to.

Hmm, you do realise that there are multitudes of people who are not able to act on what they believe in?

If you are asking me if I realize there are many people who do believe in the superstition of morality (i.e. shoulds and oughts), then the answer is yes.

If you are asking me if I realize there are many people who do not practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which one cannot control, then the answer is yes.

Indeed, if one rephrases things I've said into things that are commonly believed, one will drastically misunderstand me.

I believe many things to be true that most people do not believe to be true.

I believe many things to be false that most people do not believe to be false.

I was thinking more of people who are too old, too sick, or too weak to implement the reaction you consider normal. I would have thought that these would come to mind, but obviously not. Instead you state that morality is a “superstition,” rather than conformity to the rules of right, moral or virtuous conduct. In the light of what I have said above, this does contradict your reply to me.

There are also things that you cannot control, but you have demonstrated that you wouldn’t fully and unconditionally accept that, and would intervene (even to death). Pointing out these contradictions is not “rephrasing” and I’m sure that you mean well, but obtaining knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action, is about discernment, sagacity, or insight. That is wisdom.

You accuse me of interpreting your words as meaning the exact opposite of what you are saying, but I am giving you your own words back with the request that you reconsider.

Love, equality, freedom, and peace may be the most dangerously controversial subjects about which one can speak. To speak in support of love, one challenges haters. To speak in support of fundamental human equality, one challenges sexists, racists, and those who would dehumanize others as inferior. To speak of freedom and peace, one challenges violent oppressors; one challenges murderers, rapists, and enslavers, the most dangerous of whom may be the ones who claim to commit such violence for the alleged greater good.
Hughes, Eckhart Aurelius. In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All (p. 10). OnlineBookClub.org. Kindle Edition.

Love, fundamental human equality, freedom, and peace - all ideals with which I can identify, and definitely not “nonsense,” and are standards of conceived perfection or excellence.

Voltairine de Cleyre, who you admire, was an American anarchist known for being a prolific writer and speaker who opposed capitalism, marriage, and the state. She is listed under people who promoted an “Anarchism without adjectives.” It was a time, as you say, in which women were oppressed, and treated as possessions, who had to serve men, and so her demands can be understood in that context. I also see capitalism as a kind of economic machine that has taken over humanity and enslaved us in a particularly devious way. It suggests what we need is to consume more, and keep the machine running, continually reaching for financial growth, and deeming those who fall by the wayside as not worthy. I can agree with her statement, “The hells of capitalism create the desperate; the desperate act - desperately!”

The institution of marriage depends on the participants, which I can say because I have been in a beautiful relationship for 45 years, and we have a clear idea of how we should live, and both make our claims based on that. But our relationship isn’t about those claims, which are really the ground on which we stand, but about our connection, our harmony of purpose, and a sense of belonging with each other and the wish to grow old together. Our ability to live this life has been enabled by a democracy that protects us and provides a framework in which to live our lives.

If I look at the time in which Voltairine lived and look at Europe, we see a similar disparity to that which she criticised, and more besides. It changed after two world wars, and states were rebuilt, especially Germany, which was re-programmed, so that the children born in the last years of WWII were orientated towards rock-and-roll rather than the goosestep. This was done based on principles and standards, some of which were reformed and redefined along the way, but which provided for a generally harmonious society, in which women increasingly had their say and other groups gained recognition. This was built on the foundation of social criticism, either in the form of literature or political ideas.

What we observe now in Europe is a perceived “Americanisation” of public life, which is reverting to extremist positions, left-wing or right-wing policies, rather than the representation in coalitions, which represent the diversity of society better, and thereby promotes solidarity. Therefore, I can understand someone living in an American situation having the opinions you have expressed, but the way out of this is to create a political atmosphere in which love, fundamental human equality, freedom, and peace can thrive. Solidarity with the diverse lifestyles of human beings has a great deal to do with that, providing people do not undermine that solidarity by their selfish demands. Just like in a marriage, you must figuratively build your house by laying a fundament, building rooms and walls with windows and doors, and covering it with a roof. Or you can live in a tent – which in my mind is what anarchism is.

You may be free as a bird, but you don't grow old.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

You actually quote an example of a contradiction:

You agreed with me that there are cases when we should, or ought to use defensive force ...

I did not and do not agree with that.

The use of block letters shows an extra emphasis, or as I said (using a word you use) adamant disagreement.

You quote yourself saying:

As someone who is trained in boxing and jiu jitsu and who is a registered gun owner, I can assure you that it does not rob me of it. In the luckily unlikely event that someone came to my house and attempted to rape my kids or I, we would have an unfortunately gruesome illustration of that fact.

There is no contradiction.

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

Likewise, I do not not believe we 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow. Nor do I believe we 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow.

I do not believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' at all.

I can tell you whether or not I will drink coffee tomorrow.

I believe in can and cannot. And, from can, I believe in do or do not.

I do not believe in 'ought' or 'should'.

I do not believe in ought-statements.

I believe in is-statements (including has been and will be).

[Stoppelmann]

There is no contradiction.

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

Likewise, I do not not believe we 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow. Nor do I believe we 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow.

I do not believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' at all.

I can tell you whether or not I will drink coffee tomorrow.

I believe in can and cannot. And, from can, I believe in do or do not.

I do not believe in 'ought' or 'should'.

I do not believe in ought-statements.

I believe in is-statements (including has been and will be).

Then this is a radicalisation of language that will lead to misunderstanding.You are consistent in your short book about the use of those words, but as we can see in our exchange, you overlook (or ignore) the meaning of a sentence in your protest of the word.

Looking at books by other authors for the use of the words, depending on the length of the books, the word "should" is used hundreds of times in the context in which I have used it, and yet there is no misconception, and the intention of the authors is not compromised.

Another effect is that you have ignored the answers to the question at hand, whether man is fit to govern, and interrupted the conversation merely to protest the use of two words. This isn't conducive to discussion.

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe in is-statements (including has been and will be).

Then you may spend a lot of time being silent. To say "is" is to make a statement of certainty, leaving no room for doubt or alternatives. For human beings in the real world, but looking with a philosophical viewpoint, there are very few topics indeed where we can justify saying "is" instead of "maybe" or "seems to be".

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I believe in is-statements (including has been and will be).

Then you may spend a lot of time being silent.

I do spend a lot of time being silent, and for those who ask my advice I advise it.

Inner peace is not the same as outer peace, but it is interesting how the former is usually often conducive to more of the latter, particularly in terms of one's own behavior. Those with self-frustratingly loud judgemental minds torturing them day-in and day-out often have mouths to match, giving the rest of us a small taste of what they have to live with inside their own head.

As I write in the polite suggestions section of my book, In It Together, "Choose your battles, stingily."

To say "is" is to make a statement of certainty, leaving no room for doubt or alternatives.

Sorry for not being clear, in terms of the so-called Is-Ought Problem in philosophy, and in terms of is-statements versus ought-statements, it is not about eliminating probability or uncertain belief.

Saying, I probably will not win the lottery tomorrow is an is-statement.

Saying, I probably ought not is an ought-statement.

Saying, it would probably be morally wrong for me to play the lottery is an ought-statement.

Saying, I believe the defendant is not lying, but I am not sure, is an is-statement.

Saying, I believe the defendant is immoral, but I am not sure, is an ought-statement.

[Pattern-chaser]

Saying, I probably will not win the lottery tomorrow is an is-statements.

Oh. Then I withdraw my comments, in favour of "I don't understand what is being said here".

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There is no contradiction.

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

Likewise, I do not not believe we 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow. Nor do I believe we 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow.

I do not believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' at all.

I can tell you whether or not I will drink coffee tomorrow.

I believe in can and cannot. And, from can, I believe in do or do not.

I do not believe in 'ought' or 'should'.

I do not believe in ought-statements.

I believe in is-statements (including has been and will be).

Another effect is that you have ignored the answers to the question at hand, whether man is fit to govern, and interrupted the conversation merely to protest the use of two words. This isn't conducive to discussion.

Thank you your reply!

It is not just the use of those two words that I am "protesting".

If I told you that I don't believe in Big Foot, and thus don't use phrases like "Big Foot wants", it wouldn't just be the words "Big Foot" that I was "protesting".

I haven't interrupted the conversation with this belief.

I included it--for very important reasons--in the OP, early on as a key premise, not as some side comment:

I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing. So if hypothetically I'm asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", I cannot answer. There are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy, only cans and cannots; and then from ‘can’ there is only do and do not. In my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do, and only time and happenstance will tell if my answer is honest and true.

[...]

But please don't think that me giving those hypothetical examples of the utilitarian benefits of the current violent plutocracy suddenly backing off so that we can enjoy the wonderful fruits of a much more peaceful society are meant to imply shoulds or oughts.

Nope.

Rather, we each have to choose for ourselves what we ourselves will do. Our freedom of spirit precedes and supersedes that of any politics or fleshy happenstance.

Asking me what you or I or someone or something else should do, or what you or I or someone or something else ought to do, or what you or I or someone or something else have a moral duty to do, or what is the moral thing to do, etc., is like asking me what unicorns like to eat. It's not merely that I cannot answer and will not answer and refuse to answer, but also there is a deeper fundamental reason I consider the question unanswerable: I don't believe in unicorns.

It's not merely that I don't (and can't) sincerely talk about the eating preferences of unicorns; it's that I don't believe in it all. I neither believe unicorns exist, nor believe their eating preferences exist.

If you don't understand what I mean by any of the above (namely in the quote from the OP above), or disagree with any of it, then I suggest you post in my topic dedicated specifically to the so-called Is-Ought Problem: There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

I'd also love to hear your three answers in my more recent topic, Three questions for people who believe evil [a.k.a. immorality] actually exists.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

To say "is" is to make a statement of certainty, leaving no room for doubt or alternatives.

Sorry for not being clear, in terms of the so-called Is-Ought Problem in philosophy, and in terms of is-statements versus ought-statements, it is not about eliminating probability or uncertain belief.

Saying, I probably will not win the lottery tomorrow is an is-statement.

Saying, I probably ought not is an ought-statement.

Oh. Then I withdraw my comments, in favour of "I don't understand what is being said here".

Let me do my best to clarify what I mean...

In terms of the infamous "Is-Ought Problem", such as explained by the philosopher David Hume:

"probably is" is an is-statement (i.e. an amoral statement)

"probably ought to be" is an ought-statement (i.e. a moralistic claim).


Adding or removing the word 'probably' does not affect whether or not a given statement is amoral (i.e. an is-statement) or moralistic (i.e. an ought-statement).

Nor does changing the tense (e.g. from present tense to past tense). For example, "it should have been" is just as much an ought-statement as "it should be right now".

I hope that helps clarify what was meant by the post to which you originally replied on this particular subject:

I do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to use defensive force.

I have used defensive force in the past, and if the opportunity unfortunately presents itself again, I will use it again.

Likewise, I do not not believe we 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow. Nor do I believe we 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow.

I do not believe in 'shoulds' or 'oughts' at all.

I can tell you whether or not I will drink coffee tomorrow.

I believe in can and cannot. And, from can, I believe in do or do not.

I do not believe in 'ought' or 'should'.

I do not believe in ought-statements.

I believe in is-statements (including has been and will be) [and including probably is, probably was, and probably will be].

I added a little extra to the quote in brackets to make it clearer, so thank you for helping me see that opportunity. I'll keep that in mind when talking about the same subject with others in the future.

[Stoppelmann]

Thank you your reply!

It is not just the use of those two words that I am "protesting".

If I told you that I don't believe in Big Foot, and thus don't use phrases like "Big Foot wants", it wouldn't just be the words "Big Foot" that I was "protesting".

But the use of an auxiliary verb in context is not the same as using a noun, which is a word that refers to a thing, a person, an animal, a place, a quality, an idea, or an action. If you use “should” as anything but an auxiliary verb you take it out of context, and as Pattern-Chaser was, saying, it becomes incoherent.

I haven't interrupted the conversation with this belief.

I included it--for very important reasons--in the OP, early on as a key premise, not as some side comment:

I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing. So if hypothetically I'm asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", I cannot answer. There are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy, only cans and cannots; and then from ‘can’ there is only do and do not. In my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do, and only time and happenstance will tell if my answer is honest and true.

When I said, we agreed on something we should do under certain circumstances, I probably could have said we agree on what we would do under certain circumstances. However, the one is dependent on certain factors, and the other is independent of these, and definitive. When looking ahead, as in giving instruction, there is room for accepting that certain factors may reduce my ability to react to a given circumstance, and therefore I use the word should instead of would. Otherwise, the use of definitive statements (in this case “you will” or “you shall”) is a command.

But this seems to be connected with something else you said:

But please don't think that me giving those hypothetical examples of the utilitarian benefits of the current violent plutocracy suddenly backing off so that we can enjoy the wonderful fruits of a much more peaceful society are meant to imply shoulds or oughts.

Rather, we each have to choose for ourselves what we ourselves will do. Our freedom of spirit precedes and supersedes that of any politics or fleshy happenstance.

It seems to be an anarchistic protest against a proposed “current violent plutocracy,” a government by the wealthy, and rejection of the democratic system we have in the West in favour of an unrealised ideal. We have various versions of plutocracy in the world, democratic and authoritarian, so it is useless to deny it, but as previous generations suffered the whims of Kings and Queens, Kaisers, Czars, Moguls, more recently Führer or Chairman, and whatever else they called themselves, you can see the development through conflict towards a more inclusive society that has installed human rights and standards of behaviour that have reduced, at least to a considerable degree, the suffering of the population. This is a relatively new development, and it is definitely not perfect, but anarchy is an unwritten page and you don’t know what will fill it.

As I said, I am with you when it comes to self-discipline, and it certainly is the key to a better society, but as a precondition, it is a “should,” which we cannot command. I can command many things if I have the authority, but I cannot command the way a person thinks. Amongst the anarchists and revolutionaries in pre-democratic Germany they used to sing defiantly, “Die Gedanken sind frei” (the thoughts are free), and they remain so – even when they are detrimental.

But if you are building something together, amongst the like-minded, we share our thoughts, and reject the “thought police.” We debate and argue, propose the most stupendous ideas, and accept that it is first of all a projection of ideas, which have to be qualified. If we make restrictions on how people should speak, we are turning towards authoritarianism, but instead we vote to find out what is accepted by the majority. Arguments start proposing less stupendous ideas, and move towards that which is conceivable, and which is achievable.

I will look at the topics you have suggested, but would ask you to consider what I have said above, because you haven’t actually written anything in answer to my reaction to this topic.