Hi @tad-auker, Bear in mind that I am just researching the subject and putting my thoughts on paper. I have written a few articles as indicated above. I am planning to write a follow up post about the Authority in the Free Society., but the bottom line is that the rules of a free society should be general, and apply to people in authority as much as to citizens. Not sure about the second point. My second example above actually shows that even if there are laws, people do not abide by these and therefor does not always control bad behavior.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My point was not intended to be critical. I had hoped to be more thought provoking. My focus is on the idea of 'control' itself. Laws and rules derived from the law are intended as control measures to shape or control bad behavior. So the question then becomes; Who decides what is bad and therefore needs to be controlled? Further; Do we need to talk about control measures first? Wouldn't it be more advisable to speak to rational self-interest first? Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions, but, it seems to me that 'human nature' is treated as a problem to be controlled or solved, rather than as an opportunity space for learning and growth.
Cheers.