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.