OR, what a ridiculous question, but then, it all depends on just how one wants to LOOK AT, and SEE, 'things'.Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm One of my family members sent me the following question, and about eight or nine paragraphs into writing my blabbering reply, I decided to copy my answer here.
What a great question!I'm interested in your thoughts on how society would function if people were truly free to do whatever they wanted. As in, if government doesn't make any rules that services need to be available to all, would that make the inequalities and injustices better or worse? People are kinda **** and I imagine there would be groups of people deprived entirely of essential services. For example, if there are only a handful of doctors in a state qualified to treat a rare medical condition and all of them refuse to serve people who are left handed, lefties would be SOL.
This question might be "great" from the perspective that they were asking for your ("other's) 'views'. However, the rest after the question is just based on ridiculous assumptions.
You do not have to look to far already, when this is being written, to see groups of people deprived entirely of essential services.
But, then again, I do look at the whole picture, and not with just some very narrowed and short-sighted view of 'things'.
So what?Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm First, I want to say that the majority of my philosophy and the best aspects of my philosophy, in my opinion, are not political. My beautiful glorious non-political overall philosophy is centered around a deep value for spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) and a transcendence of flesh and of fear of death. My first tattoo was a stoic mediation, "Memento Mori", which is Latin for "remember you will die". I put that stoic meditation on my left arm where I see it every day.
Also, besides the fact that 'you' are obviously completely unaware of who and what 'I' AM, and how 'I' do not die, 'you' are only partly correct in that 'you' will die.
Unfortunately though 'you' also appear here to not yet be fully aware of who and what the 'you' IS, and who and what 'it' is exactly that actually fades away and does not necessarily die, in the true sense.
What do you mean when you say that you agree that humans are four stars****?Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm 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 analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline.
Primarily, the authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones. I suspect generally only those people who are way too attached to the material world of the flesh could care very much about the topical human politics of a sliver of time on a tiny planet in an endless sky.
One reason all of that is important to note is because it speaks to this point: 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.
With all that said, I agree that humans are **** (and arrogant, selfish, cowardly, short-sighted, addiction-prone, and self-righteous). Man is not fit to govern man. No human on this planet is fit to wield the power of non-defensive violence, especially not of the state-sponsored variety.
When you say that you agree humans are arrogant, selfish, cowardly, etc, are you meaning that ALL of 'you', human beings, are born that way? Or, do you mean something else? If the latter, then will you elaborate?
Why did you jump from using the 'human' word to the 'man' word in the second sentence here? When you do this here are you implying that women are fit to govern men?
When you say that NO human on this planet is 'fit' to wield the power of non-defensive violence, then what exactly do you mean by the 'fit' word here? Also, are humans who are not on this planet 'fit' to wield the power of non-defensive violence.
If so, then why so?
But if no, then why did you write this this way?
What do you mean by "fight you to death" here?Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm The idea of the benevolent dictator is an impossible naive pipe dream, in my opinion. The idea of a mob of people acting as a multi-person benevolent dictator is even worse and more absurdly impossible. It may falsely sound pleasant in random specifics (e.g. "let's use non-defensive violence to end world hunger") but it is easily shown to be an absurd impossibility. Impossible imaginary ends are used to justify foolish means, the foolish means being namely non-defensive violence such as murder and rape.
If anyone's plan to 'save the world' or do charity requires committing rape, murder, or other non-defensive violence, then let me give that person fair warning they need to be ready to fight me to death.
Are you suggesting that you would literally fight to death of that human body just for your views here?
Your beliefs here are conflicting and very contradictory.Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm I believe not only in the principle of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but also I believe equally in the broader principle from which that one is derived: "I strongly dislike what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it."
Here we go, once again, down the slippery slope and spiral path to getting absolutely NOWHERE.Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm I don't care how noble the Noble thinks the end goal of their prima nocta is, or how legal of a raping it is, I would still rather die as a William Wallace than live to become a murder, rapist, or coward--to sacrifice the one thing that is worth anything: self-discipline, self-ownership, and spiritual freedom, three different phrases that all mean the same exact thing to me.
I don’t philosophically agree, but I understand why an act utilitarian would hypothetically commit murder, rape, or slavery as a perceived lesser of two evils, such as by murdering an anti-left-hand doctor's child to coerce the doctor into saving two left-handed children against his will, presumably as a form of utilitarian slave labor. A more traditional philosophical thought experiment is to murder a fat man by pushing the fat man in front of a train to save 5 others.
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.
WHY do some people who have gone through, so called, "philosophical studies" still use these absolutely absurd and useless "thought experiments", especially when they have already been proven to not resolve absolutely ANY thing?
Do you REALLY believe that you are Truly able to speak for EVERY human being like you are here?
Has a human being EVER said ANY thing like this?
If so, then bring them forward so that we can take a LOOK AT them, and then DISCUSS. Until then this just seems like some sort of weird fantasy of yours.
To me, it appears here that you are 'trying to' argue against some thing that does not even exist and is of your OWN making up anyway.
And 'you', "scott", appear to be an ACTUAL PRIME EXAMPLE of one of these people here.
You appear to super fearful of 'death'.Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm For instance, any accurate trolley problem needs to have a loop in it very closely because the trolley is going to get us all very soon. You can’t save any human from death ever; we are all going to die very soon. The best you can do is postpone a human's death for a little bit. I've heard many different wise people say, we all die, but we don't all really live.
Also, you appear to have no conception of an 'accurate problem' here also.
You appear to be somewhat confused here as well.
By the way how many organs do you imagine there are in ONE human body?
And how do you feel when you ask ANOTHER human being that question?
WHY?Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm So even though I would still oppose rape, murder, slavery and other non-defensive violence even if it was utilitarian, ten times out of ten I will bet that my way (namely peaceful non-violence) happens to be the utilitarian way anyway, at least if we limit ourselves to the practical and truly possible. To illustrate, I definitely believe that, if somehow society suddenly became much less violent (and thus by extension there was much more political localism, self-government, decentralization, and individual freedom), then there would also be less children starving to death every day and less kids being blown to pieces by drone strikes.
If as you say, and CLAIM, human beings are to selfish and foolish, then WHY would there be less children starving to death every day and less kids being blown to pieces by drone strikes.
What you wrote above is like writing, "IF there were less children starving to death every day and less kids being blown to pieces by drone strikes, then there would be less children starving to death every day and less kids being blown to pieces by drone strikes", which is obviously just a given.
But, if as you say, and CLAIM, human beings are arrogant, selfish, cowardly, short-sighted, addiction-prone, and self-righteous, WHY and HOW could things EVERY change?
LOL Well that is one attempt at "justification" for NOT doing the right thing, which I have not seen previously.Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm I don't think so many thousands and thousands of children are starving to death because there is too little state-sponsored violence; I think the opposite is the case. While utopia might not be possible, I believe less violence would lead to much less children starving. For example, I definitely think I myself would personally donate more to useful charities if less of my money was forcefully taken from me to fund the military industrial complex.
The True reason why children are starving to death is because of the attempts at "justifications", which you have just shown a PRIME EXAMPLE of here.
Also do not expect the funding for the military industrial complex to lessen at all when that industry is being "justified", just like you are showing here in your attempts at "justifying" the military industrial complex itself.Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm 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.
The subtlety of you doing this you probably do not even see nor recognize yet. But it is there, obvious, and very clearly able to be seen by all.
This is about the first sentence of yours here that truly makes any real sense.
Very true.
What do you mean by 'must'? That is what you just do and have been doing anyway, correct?
Or do you only choose these mis/behaviors based on some other 'thing'?
Are you under some sort of illusion that this is going to happen AGAIN?Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm 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.
LOL It is pretty easy to make a promise in relation to what you would do, say; 80 years ago IN THE PAST.Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm 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.
LOL ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of attempting to "justify" one's WRONG behaviors.Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm 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.
Saying the voice in your OWN head, which told you to do 'that', was NOT "your voice" is another new attempt of "justifying" I have heard also.
But what if "another" voice says 'yes'?
HOW do 'you' decipher if that was thee I that chose that or if that was the, so called, "other" voice?
Oh, and by the way, there is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY way to decipher and distinguish between ALL of this.
But 'you' told us earlier that 'you' ARE selfish and foolish.
Therefore, I would NOT be to trusting of what 'you' (or the 'i') choose to disobey, or obey.
LOL If 'you' (the 'i') has ALREADY labeled 'it' a "tough diet", then OBVIOUSLY 'you' will 'need' MORE 'self-discipline'.
You, here, appear to have a REAL hatred for some people.
If each person is 'stuck' choosing for themselves, then why did you suggest here that we 'must' choose for ourselves?
Like I suggested earlier human beings just naturally choose for themselves.
Oh, and by the way, this is only from a certain age, and when this is FULLY understood, then just about ALL of the problems/issues that you have raised here will just slowly diminish and die off anyway.
But you are still a long way from understanding this FULLY.
In regards to what, EXACTLY?
Now you are back to you 'have to' choose for yourself, which is just about the exact same as you 'must' choose for yourself.
What is 'it' to you?
Adult human beings just naturally choose for themselves anyway, or, adult human beings 'must' and 'have to' choose for themselves?
When you say 'you' here, are you referring to 'you', adult human beings, or, are you referring to all new born babies and all children as well?
I have faith that you can SEE what I am getting at here.
That can be said for ALL behaviors as well.
And your responses to my clarifying questions will SHOW and REVEAL more about this being 'comfortably ignorant' or being Truly wide-eyed and OPEN and wanting to discover and learn more, and anew.
REALLY?
We will just have to WAIT and SEE how much ACTUAL Truth there is in this sentence of yours here.
Did you ask "kierkegaard" this to gain CLARITY, or are you just ASSUMING this?
Your last two accusations about human beings were referred to "most" and "many" of them. Was this done so as to not include "your" own 'self'?Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who wrote, "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." Shaw's words help show the analogousness between mere political freedom and grander spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline). In a Shaw-like way, we can say that the spiritual freedom that is self-discipline means self-responsibility, and that is why most humans not only dread it but also desperately lie to themselves in anxious dreadful resentful denial of this most obvious truth: Spiritually, you are free whether you like it or not.
If yes, then I think, and hope, 'you' will find that this is just ANOTHER form of denial, and/or delusion, itself.
Did you answer my clarifying question above about if ALL children's decisions are 100% their own as well?
Besides the fact that it is NOT even possible to be 'a murderer' nor 'a rapist', OBVIOUSLY whatever an adult human being is because they CHOSE to do that.
Unless, OF COURSE, ANY one can prove otherwise.
And, IF 'you' want to LOOK AT the REAL and ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then, as an adult human being, NO body can 'make' you choose to intentionally and knowingly commit defensive violence ALSO.
But maybe you are not yet ready to LOOK AT this, just yet.
LOL "probably".Scott wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 9:37 pm Voltaire wrote, "man is free at the instant he wants to be."
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.
By the way, the question that "kicked this off" you never seemed to really address.
The question was:
I'm interested in your thoughts on how society would function if people were truly free to do whatever they wanted. As in, if government doesn't make any rules that services need to be available to all, would that make the inequalities and injustices better or worse?
To me, once the three roots of all evils are addressed;
1. Dishonesty.
2. Child abuse.
3. Greed, the love of money.
Then, how a society would function when people are truly FREE to do whatever they wanted, would be much better and would be continually moving towards a more Truly Peaceful and Harmonious society all of the time.
But without those three things being addressed, and especially with Dishonesty being the root of ALL evil and so if that is not completely diminished from society/the "world", then the inequalities and injustices will remain rough the same as they are now, in the days of when this is being written.