You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Is IT Dead Yet?

In that boxing match the point was not about your personal views of self responsibility. It was about societies'. When an individual exists in a society the individual must abide by that societies rules. The individual does not get to pick and choose which rules he/she wishes to follow. It's not a new concept. Humans have done it since the beginning of time. A group of individuals agree on some rules. Those individuals also then agree on some kind of punishment for those who break the rules. But the rule breakers dont get to individually decide what they personally consider to be the rules. By staying in that society and participating within that society they choose to abide by those rules. If an individual decides they no longer want to live in that society they are free to go seek out one or start their own. But to do that is a very costly thing to do in both time & money. So the best option is stay within the current community and work to change it from the inside. But that still requires the individual to follow the societies rules. Whether they agree with them or not. Otherwise that individual will still reap the consequences of the rules.

At this point, existing in a society is the biggest part of Self Responsibility. Whether an individual is conducting themselves in a way that aligns with the rules of the society. So again, if the individual does not agree to the rules of the society they are currently participating in they are free to go to one that does agree with them, start their own or work on the inside of the one they are currently in and try to change it.

I'm thinking you were confusing Self Reliance with Self Responsibility. Which, although they do go hand in hand, are two different things. Self Reliance is when the individual does not rely on a society for any resources such as food, water, electricity, heat, etc. It is still completely possible to be self reliant and only enter into society occasionally ie for supplies. But at that point the individual still needs to abide by that societies rules. Even for the short amount of time they are in it to conduct their business. They still can not pick and choose the rules they follow. Only when they return to their own society do they get to do that. There are borders around countries, citys, towns, counties, provinces for this reason. To mark where those rules start and end. But still since that individual's domicile, compound, farm, home, what ever you want to call it. Is still most likely located in an already existing county, township, province or a country there are already laws and regulations for that area that the individual will have to follow.

Self Responsibility falls under whether that individual is conducting themselves in accordance to the societies rules. Not what their personal opinion is of them. That was the whole entire point being made.

As far as "grey areas" of law and certain people getting away with breaking the rules and others not. That is corruption and an entirely different subject. Because the laws are black and white whether no matter what an individuals opinion on them are. The people who bend them or color between the lines, who then form a corrupt opinion in peoples interpretation of the law.

It's the same concept as a computer. You can say "the computer is corrupt or corrupted". But in actuality it's not. The code was changed by someone messing with the computer. So the fault isn't the computer, it was the person instructing the computer. But who? Is it the black hat hacker that wrote the code for the virus or the individual that clicked the sketchy link without checking it out first? In the concept of Self Responsibility, It's obviously the individual that clicked the sketchy link and not the hacker. But without the societies rules the hacker could never be stopped or brought to justice for destroying or draining the wallets of someone else's property.

So should that hacker just run free to continue to trick other people into executing his code to destroy peoples lives or should their be some sort of justice for the victim? Even if that hacker doesn't personally agree with societies rules. Yes he should be. Why? Because we as a society agree that theft & vandalism is wrong. Me personally I think it's both sad and funny that people are so easily duped in these situations. Part of me feels really bad for that person when it happens. But then the other part of me says, "Damn that was a good one". But I feel bad when the hacker gets busted usually through some way they didnt expect.

But my personal opinion doesn't change the law.

Sort:  

When an individual lives in a society, he must abide by the rules of that society.


...and that was the moment I stopped reading your comment, because that sentence just says that everyone has to abide by it. Which is bullshit...and in my experience, everything that comes after a quote like that is based on that. This is an absolute "no go" for the freedom of nature.

Today the so called "civilized society" immediately abuses the free born man and forces him into their pre-chewed slavery without even thinking about it. All based on "laws." At least 80% of these "laws" are made to "protect" some idiot or/and because some insurance company wants it that way. And since most people in this society don't use their brains anymore, this tradition/culture is accepted without questioning.

Tradition and culture are mass conditioning instruments. A free man with the natural basis of self-respect and enough common sense needs neither "king" nor one of his lackeys to live. This free man is capable of healthy communication. An exchange of experiences without imposing his personal ego.

The basis of today's society is violence and intimidation. In order to change this and introduce the change that many are talking about, the existing construct must be dissolved and everything must be built up from scratch. Just as it is impossible to make a dessert out of shit by adding sugar. This "dessert" continues to be shit, simply with sugar on it.

Let's bring us humans back to nature and stop abusing drugs to endure the daily rape. That would be a first step to the basic attitude for a new beginning. And your personal opinion would be the second step to change not only the law, but everything.

Peace & Free Mind Brother

That's your choice to only nit pick a line out of entire comment to not put any of it into context.

Perfect way to stay open minded and live within a romantic world view!
That's will most certainly change everybody's hearts and minds.

That's sarcasm in case you couldn't tell.

Yep, that was definitely my personal choice and your surely are right...


But since it seems that you do not have any idea how living without the society and it's obligations is (romantic world view my ass, ha) and since it just is impossible to explain in words how real liberty and freedom feels like, i suggest you may try it yourself to get the realness of life back into your bones...

If you do, then let is settle in a few months and we can "talk" about all that again...


some of the above is sarcasm too, hopefully you can tell which parts

I told myself I wasnt gonna do this but I'm going to anyways. Because I honestly take this kind of shit anymore.

and that was the moment I stopped reading your comment, because that sentence just says that everyone has to abide by it. Which is bullshit...and in my experience, everything that comes after a quote like that is based on that. This is an absolute "no go" for the freedom of nature

That last line is why you need the context. Becasue the conversation in question had nothing to do with the freedom of nature. It was a conversation about societies and laws.

You and many other people speak of these evil corporations, corporate law and capitalism as if it's the most evil thing to ever exist on the planet. Yet nobody sees the irony of us discussing it on our computer, phone, tablet on the internet using electricity in our air conditioned/heated home/apartment/motel/car/etc. NONE of this would be possible without those evil corporations or natural law. Hive wouldnt even be possible!

Name for me one free society that is governed by Natural Law. That is still active, growing and thriving in the world today other than those small tribes in what is called 3rd world countries that dont even have running water.

Please explain to me how I can still have all the possessions I currently have. The joy of being with my family and friends that are spread out over thousands of miles from each other. How would that be possible under Natural Law?
I dont know about you but I like to take a shower everyday. I like to eat hot food and I like to wipe my ass with toilet paper. I have never and will never wipe my ass with a leaf.

One other thing:

Peace & Free Mind Brother

Completely goes against everything you said with your opening line of

...and that was the moment I stopped reading your comment, because that sentence just says that everyone has to abide by it.

In order to have the Free Mind one must look at the full context.

How do you explain colours to a blind?


And yep, your right again... cool!

Loading...

It seems you've misconstrued the situation, which is only one of hundreds I've encountered over the years. To clarify, when another shuts down a conversation by expressing views that attempt to eradicate and control another's expression, I do see that as a boxing match, not a discussion. Respect for different viewpoints is essential to interactions, which is not what I experienced.

No I didnt. You did. The other party was stating from the viewpoint of living within a society. He was stating a fact of life. When you go to someone else home you abide by their rules. The same concept with a societies laws. You took it as a personal attack on your opinion. He meant nothing of it towards you personally. Nor do I.

In this statement, do you mean, do as you are told by whomever sets the rules, don't ask questions, don't think, don't decide for yourself whether something is causing harm, let someone/something else tell you? Additionally, is it acceptable to follow rules set by those who violate the very rules they set? Isn't that like following the advice of the "criminal" on the street as to how to run your life?

Now you've completely misconstrued what I said and are either over analyzing my statement or just attempting to twist it out of context for the sake of the arguement. Lol!
Speaking from a society's perspective here. Not as an individuals:
I said the individuals agree on the rules and consequences. Thats it. People are free to follow those rules or not. If people do not like those rules they are free to work on getting them changed or leave. But until rules are changed one must follow them when participating in a society. I dont know where you got the whole "dont think, dont decide for yourself ..." stuff. Because that was never a part of the my comment.
The "following rules set by those who violate them" is what I was meaning when talking about corruption. That requires exposing the corruption and then following up with changing the rules to attempt to not let it happen again. Again, this goes with working on changing the rules of the society within it and not just saying "I'm not going to follow them". Society's need rules to follow otherwise there is nothing but chaos. Rules are needed to define at what point something is right or wrong and to protect the individuals rights life, liberty and property. Natural law does not provide protection of those rights. It only ensures the "survival of the fittest".

"What is self-responsibility?

The state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one’s power, control, or management.

Again, I was not defining self responsibility itself but clarifying where it stands in relation to a society and what is expected of the individuals to coexist in that society.

I admit I was reaching for straws with the Self Reliance. ROFL!

Again laws are black and white, meaning they should not be bendable or applicable to only a particular hierarchy of a society. They are words on a piece of paper. In your drunk driving scenario you are correct. It's not the cars fault, its the driver. Now apply the same logic to the words on the piece of paper for laws. It's the people who interpret and bend those words that are at fault. Thats where you make changes. You change the people first. If that dont work then you change the laws. People are always saying "The system is broken". No it's not. The dumbass people who are running the system are broken. The system is running as it was designed.

There is nothing wrong with holding a differing opinion of society. But it does not change the fact that by being a part of that society one is still susceptible to its rules and consequences. That is not an opinion. That is a fact of life whether anybody like it or not. That was his entire point.

Free your mind, you'll thank yourself.