JasonNobody wrote:The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave
Hi Jason,
Well, it is okay for the Lion or the Elephant to prance proudly and declare that their Size and Strength, Cunning and Prowess, will keep them safe. but we are not all at the top of the Food Chain.
So, what does one do if one is middle on the Food Chain? Well, that is where the Herd Instinct pops in. Societies can band together in order to arrive at Strength in Numbers.
But what you seem to advocate is I guess a kind of political anarchy,
but anarchy is the Law of the Jungle, isn't it?
It's the Renunciation of Civilization. Have you read Thomas Hobbes? the Uncivilized Condition: " No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." ....
But, yes, it's great to share ideas with you.
JasonNobody wrote:
My underlying claim is that people are not good and can never be good and that human race can't be saved because they desperately seek authority or assume that someone has to be in charge. .
JasonNobody wrote:The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave
Leo Volont wrote: the Primary Support for any Civilization is Government.
Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:deadangry wrote: Ruined by the ruthlessly selfish few - our planet's dying, our standard of living is even now going down, in this me-me-me society that I've rejected and feel completely alienated from.
I always love this. A person that wants to believe that they have rejected the “me-me-me” of society, yet their post is all about them and what they want for themselves.
And it is interesting to me as we exist in a global community that has the absolute highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people ever in history. There are fewer people in poverty globally than ever before. There are fewer people being killed by war, disease, or violence than ever in the history of mankind.
But I understand. It is relative. Another member posted recently how the #1 cause of death for males under the age of 45 in the UK is suicide as if it is a negative thing.
Negative? Heck no, it is a positive thing. Think about what it actually signifies. What does it actually mean when we ask ourselves, what was the #1 cause of death of men under the age of 45 previously? Oh, that’s right, it was war, violence, or industrial working conditions. But for such wonderful progress in reducing violence and improving working conditions, suicide would not be the #1 cause. Instead of young, healthy, vibrant men dying in factories or on the battlefield, we have improved so much that young men no longer need worry about these forms of death.
Now our focus and resources can now turn to preventing suicide, because these other forms of death have been reduced as our global community thrives. We live in good times.
Obviously if you buy into the fear producing media, the world is ending and we all live in crappy conditions. If you buy into the media, everyone should be entitled to free everything. From that standard the world is certainly a horrible, dark, miserable place to live. Instead of celebrating how far we have come, the media must thrive on what we have not yet achieved.
And unfortunately this constant 24/7 drumbeat of negativity is absorbed as truth by some and it actually contributes to depression and by extension suicide. Because some people lament what they think they should have or the way the world should be based on some BS narrative put out there to get clicks and generate views for advertisers, the blood and gore media is part of the problem.If my psychiatrist doesn't achieve anything significant tomorrow, I don't know. I've been hanging on in the adult NHS mental health system for 20 years but you know what, life actually isn't worth living. I'm glad I didn't have kids - they'd only suffer!! I'm leaving a partner behind, and what makes me most angry is that I know this country would fail to look after her.
The fact a country even provides NHS is a modern marvel. Having drastically reduced poverty, disease and war, your country will look after her like no other time ever in global history. But, I understand that is not good enough.
This post is not to convince the OP of anything, but is for others that might read this and take time to reflect.
What is taking place with the OP is unfortunate. While things like poverty, disease, war, and famine are globally at the lowest point ever in the existence of mankind, there are people depressed because some utopian standard has not yet been achieved. The media thrives on painting a dark picture, the end of the world scenario, regardless of how good things actually are. Politicians need votes and they too contribute. They can’t point to the Black Plague or the threat of global war, so they need to create fear, they need to build up “problems” so they can then solve the problem.
If you feel that our global community is headed down some tragic path, I encourage you to check your premise. Turn off the television, disconnect from social media, and do some reading from sources that are not trying to get your vote or earn money from fear.
alwaysask wrote:I understand your point of view but it also comes across as if you believe this system is designed to give every person a fair shot. The reality is this system was concocted by
...Your comments can't really be applied wholesale like this. Do you see?
Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:alwaysask wrote:I understand your point of view but it also comes across as if you believe this system is designed to give every person a fair shot. The reality is this system was concocted byI never said any system was designed to give every person a fair shot.
You are correct, but you speak as if that is the case. Particularly when you were citing your own prosperity.The reality is, whatever “system” has been concocted over the past 70,0000 years, there has never been and there never will in the eyes of every person a “fair” system for every person. That is reality.
This is true to a point. We have yet to discover such a system. Is a fair system impossible? I would say at present yes. I would not rule it out as a future possibility but that will depend on the pursuits of tech (IMO)The reality, is that some people were treated horribly unfair in comparison to me or you or the poster you referenced. Some people lived when disease and famine were the most common way to die, when child mortality rates were at 50%, when millions were being killed by genocide or war. To this day, there are people that don’t have a “fair shot” when you compare what you or I or the poster you reference have. We all have Internet, electricity, and some sort of electronic device. What an “unfair” privilege we have. I bet we all have clean drinking water, a roof over our heads, bed, clothing, and food. How “unfair”. We all have these great advantages, including the person you quoted.
Yes yes most first-worlders are technically part of the global 1%, I'm aware.The fact that unfairness exists is nothing new.
Also trueNow, what are you going to do about it? Be a keyboard warrior?
No.Many take that approach.
yes they do.How about the person you referenced? Even though they have tons of advantages you wouldn’t know it by what they wrote. You would think they are writing from the middle of war torn Syria.
I didn't but I understand what you mean about the tone. I think that person was more painting a picture of their internal misery and relating it to the way their outside world makes them feel.I see that the person you quoted said “our planet” and “our standard of living”...the person you referenced was making wholesale comments about the global community, about global society.
Therefore, my reply was framed in pointing out the absolutely amazing “unfair” advantages we all have compared to any other time in history.
Yes but acknowledging our material advantages doesn't really speak to the problems of not having a social sphere that you can relate to. This state of progress argument also is something I'm used to hearing from political types. Folks who bring it up often seem to brush aside the fact that yes we all have smart devices, but for some people that phone bill is a far more significant chunk of their income than it is for others.Look, I get it. No matter how wonderful the world is doing overall, there are people that will always believe that they are suffering
as well as people who are actually suffering. Not everyone is a drama mongerand that the world is not fair, because they don’t have what their neighbors have.
This is the only reason people find the world unfair?No matter how much progress is made, there will always exist jealousy, coveting what someone else has and you don’t have, cursing how “unfair” life is and blaming some system.
Unfairness is always blamed on a system?And the reality is, systems are not fair, life isn’t fair. I feel genuinely sorry and immense empathy for a small child diagnosed with terminal cancer. How unfair. But, the person you quoted? Not so much.
That's an odd way to look at it. Last time I checked there is no consistent correlation between a specific condition/event and how much suffering it can be relied upon to cause in a given person. A person can feel the same type of misery from a breakup that someone else feels from losing their entire family. The difference is in how much observers are able to empathize with the sufferer.Do you see?
alwaysask wrote:A person can feel the same type of misery from a breakup that someone else feels from losing their entire family.
The difference is in how much observers are able to empathize with the sufferer.
quietvoice wrote:Leo Volont wrote: the Primary Support for any Civilization is Government.
Most Dangerous Superstition, 200-page PDF.
Please peruse and get back to us.
Edit:
Also, today you can notice that people are speaking up about the atrocious abuses of animals and their slaughter, which is of course at this time protected by governments. We have absolutely no need to ingest dead animal carcasses and animal by-products. We are much, much healthier within our bodies and psyches for staying clean of these practices.
Leo Volont wrote:Government is a Social Contract so that the Weak may pool forces in order to counterbalance the Strong. Then there is the Argument that Government People are Wicked and that Non Government People are Virtuous. But here we are assuming that Government by the Self Appointed. No, Rule of the Self Appointed is Anarchy -- again, the Strong Domineering over the Weak.
Government, as it will be in just a decade or so, will simply consist of Systems Information Planning using Super Computer Networked Artificial Intelligence Systems. If we can't trust Humans, then fine, we will let the Machines make the rules and keep everything fair.