What's Rickie Lambert upto these days?..........

[Seal]

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

it's an interesting concept and one i didn't really know people truely believed in until today. i'm curious about this point:

"It is just me trying to live my life in the way I would like to see the world. As opposed to living how a group of people  I have never met, of dubious moral character, tells me is the best way to live. "

you say you're not arguing for a lawless society but i can't read the above statement as anything but that? your view on the world could be that if someone wrongs you in some way then you have the right to kill them. your view on the world could be that people should have the right to have consentual relationships with a person of any age they desire. those are extremes and im not accusing you of having those views, but in the society you suggest, SOME can (and 100% will) have those views. which i'd say the majority of people would consider those types of actions as being wrong. so how do we stop this sort of thing happening based? what happens to these types of individuals?

so yes you're right...we do disagree on the state of humanity. whilst all humans are certainly capable of being good, there are some that simply do not want to be and will hurt others either for monitary gain, or just becuase they're arseholes and they enjoy it.

Ok, it might be a badly written sentence by me? By people of dubious moral character I have never met, I was referring to the government. I am just suggesting that I have a better idea of what works for me in my life than say, Rishi Sunak. I don't mean to pick on him, I am referring to every person in his position. 

My fundamental rule is that you should be able to do what you want, as long as you do not stop anyone from doing what they want or cause harm. If you have a view that if someone wrongs you you have a right to kill them, then you are causing harm. That don't fly. If your view is that you have a right to have consensual relationships with a person of any age, and it turns out that person is too young, then you are causing them harm. That don't fly. I agree that in the extremes of society some people do have these views (I appreciate you are not accusing me of those views). I agree some people will have those views (I would argue less than have those views in this society). I don't know what levels of punishments would fit what crimes in this situation. Im not a big fan of death sentences of life imprisonment personally. But there would of course need to be rules in this scenario to deter people from causing harm.

I do agree that there are assholes like you cite. I think what I am trying to say is I think to an extent they are as a result of government policy (monetary gain eg). I think what I am trying to say is that if most people were lurched into a society where the responsibility was on them as individuals to be good, on the balance of i, I rather suspect goodness would come out on top. Cuz love and shit. 

[Seal]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

So, on the subject of taking responsibility for our own lives, how would you suggest I take responsibility for the education and dental care of my children? Do I have to home educate them and google up dentistry hacks? Or am I ok to join some form of co-operative system whereby I can trade my skills for the skills of teachers and dentists?

 

You could take responsibility for educating them by educating them and you could take them to the dentists? I'm pretty sure there would still be schools and dentists. 

Or you could send them to a school based on the Prussian education model, which most of the school system is today, with the stated goal of breaking up the family unit and rather than focusing on intelligence and helping the child to become a good human being, focuses more upon rules, getting a child used to a full day of work, and teaching them subjects that uphold a capitalistic world view. Or to a dentist that will encourage them to have fillings so they can make a bit of money, or something. 

 

[tomav84]

19 minutes ago, Seal said:

Ok, it might be a badly written sentence by me? By people of dubious moral character I have never met, I was referring to the government. I am just suggesting that I have a better idea of what works for me in my life than say, Rishi Sunak. I don't mean to pick on him, I am referring to every person in his position. 

My fundamental rule is that you should be able to do what you want, as long as you do not stop anyone from doing what they want or cause harm. If you have a view that if someone wrongs you you have a right to kill them, then you are causing harm. That don't fly. If your view is that you have a right to have consensual relationships with a person of any age, and it turns out that person is too young, then you are causing them harm. That don't fly. I agree that in the extremes of society some people do have these views (I appreciate you are not accusing me of those views). I agree some people will have those views (I would argue less than have those views in this society). I don't know what levels of punishments would fit what crimes in this situation. Im not a big fan of death sentences of life imprisonment personally. But there would of course need to be rules in this scenario to deter people from causing harm.

I do agree that there are assholes like you cite. I think what I am trying to say is I think to an extent they are as a result of government policy (monetary gain eg). I think what I am trying to say is that if most people were lurched into a society where the responsibility was on them as individuals to be good, on the balance of i, I rather suspect goodness would come out on top. Cuz love and shit. 

OK there's something i'm clearly not getting. because it's everyone's responsibility NOW to be good. you and you alone face punishments if you're not. so what's the difference? you say in this hypothetical society you can "do what you want, as long as you do not stop anyone from doing what they want or cause harm". so who enforces that? what about the road speed limit...you're not direcly causing anyone harm by speeding, but acting recklessly that could endanger others...is that ok? on a similar topic, driving licenses are government issued and are in place to ensure you are only allowed on the road once you have proven yourself competent to do so...presumably those are ousted too? so again, people in danger and driving related deaths almost certainly would increase?

i'm just trying to understand the difference between your proposed society and the one we have now

[Seal]

15 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

OK there's something i'm clearly not getting. because it's everyone's responsibility NOW to be good. you and you alone face punishments if you're not. so what's the difference? you say in this hypothetical society you can "do what you want, as long as you do not stop anyone from doing what they want or cause harm". so who enforces that? what about the road speed limit...you're not direcly causing anyone harm by speeding, but acting recklessly that could endanger others...is that ok? on a similar topic, driving licenses are government issued and are in place to ensure you are only allowed on the road once you have proven yourself competent to do so...presumably those are ousted too? so again, people in danger and driving related deaths almost certainly would increase?

i'm just trying to understand the difference between your proposed society and the one we have now

Ok. It might be I am not understanding quite your point also. I think that it is everyones responsibility now to be good. However, in this society I would argue that you are not taught to be good. You are told you are a good citizen if you do what society considers to be good. Not if you follow your own intuitive path as to what is good. I personally think it is good to explore ones consciousness and various states. Yet a number of the plants I would choose to accompany me on this path are illegal. Also if I were a bird, I would be able to fly from one nation region to another no questions asked. Yet as a human I need to pay someone for the privilege of their protection in order to do so. We live in a society whereby many people form their opinions based upon what they read in the news and the media. They aren't acting as they see good, but how they are told to be good. I think it is important for the human experience to work that out for yourself. It is considered good to charge interest on money for instance, but really this just has the long term impact of flowing more money to those that have money and less to those that have little, it ain't good in my book. I think good is not something that is defined by a society. It is something that exists better in all of us as our own (unimpeded moral compasses). I think there are thousands of ways that this society is said to be good, when really it is just benefiting a few at the expense of many. 

You (royal) are taught to be selfish. Capitalism is fundamentally fraud. Fraud in you pay the workers less than they work, and sell products for more than they are worth. Society supports that. I would argue society is created by elites to be run by elites to benefit elites. In thousands of different ways. I don't think marxism is any better for the human. 

What I am suggesting I prefer is: anarchy. Anarchy the word comes from Greek. An - meaning without. And archy(? or something similar maybe archon??)  meaning rulers. It means without rulers. It doesn't mean without rules. It means with rulers. So what I am arguing for is a society which does not favour particular groups. This means rules to allow a society to function. 

I don't see the need in having rules that stops people from doing things that cause no harm or bother. I am not arguing for no rules. 

I think you (royal you, I am sure you are a decent driver) are causing harm by speeding. So no, I don't think that is ok. Personally. Someone else might. 

On the driving license issue. I quite like knowing that everyone on the roads can also drive. I also think that not having a limitation or requirement could be said to cause harm to society. So I don't have a bug bear with that at all. I got a scuba license once and the government didn't issue that, so I guess it is possible to work these kind of things out without a government. I think that this idea that the government brings to the party all the things we need to have a society that isn't a bunch of people slinging poo at each other in trees is a bit of an axiom at best. 

Does that clear up what I am saying? One thing I would like to be clearer on is that I am not really advocating a particular society. Although I do have views on what this would be. I am just explaining why i think it is ok to consider that you don't have a government. Nor do I wish to impose my views on you, I am merely just explaining my position. But am a little aware I am probably sounding preachy. I hope I ain't being preachy. Thanks also for engaging in positive manner. Sometimes on the internet people forget to do that so ta for not being that. You can have a license to use the internet in my made up hypothetical utopia. 

 

[LondonLax]

10 hours ago, Daveburnside said:

Don't ask me. JFK said it shortly after his assassination by the CIA.

Did his ghost visit you in a dream?

[tomav84]

9 hours ago, Seal said:

Ok. It might be I am not understanding quite your point also. I think that it is everyones responsibility now to be good. However, in this society I would argue that you are not taught to be good. You are told you are a good citizen if you do what society considers to be good. Not if you follow your own intuitive path as to what is good. I personally think it is good to explore ones consciousness and various states. Yet a number of the plants I would choose to accompany me on this path are illegal. Also if I were a bird, I would be able to fly from one nation region to another no questions asked. Yet as a human I need to pay someone for the privilege of their protection in order to do so. We live in a society whereby many people form their opinions based upon what they read in the news and the media. They aren't acting as they see good, but how they are told to be good. I think it is important for the human experience to work that out for yourself. It is considered good to charge interest on money for instance, but really this just has the long term impact of flowing more money to those that have money and less to those that have little, it ain't good in my book. I think good is not something that is defined by a society. It is something that exists better in all of us as our own (unimpeded moral compasses). I think there are thousands of ways that this society is said to be good, when really it is just benefiting a few at the expense of many. 

You (royal) are taught to be selfish. Capitalism is fundamentally fraud. Fraud in you pay the workers less than they work, and sell products for more than they are worth. Society supports that. I would argue society is created by elites to be run by elites to benefit elites. In thousands of different ways. I don't think marxism is any better for the human. 

What I am suggesting I prefer is: anarchy. Anarchy the word comes from Greek. An - meaning without. And archy(? or something similar maybe archon??)  meaning rulers. It means without rulers. It doesn't mean without rules. It means with rulers. So what I am arguing for is a society which does not favour particular groups. This means rules to allow a society to function. 

I don't see the need in having rules that stops people from doing things that cause no harm or bother. I am not arguing for no rules. 

I think you (royal you, I am sure you are a decent driver) are causing harm by speeding. So no, I don't think that is ok. Personally. Someone else might. 

On the driving license issue. I quite like knowing that everyone on the roads can also drive. I also think that not having a limitation or requirement could be said to cause harm to society. So I don't have a bug bear with that at all. I got a scuba license once and the government didn't issue that, so I guess it is possible to work these kind of things out without a government. I think that this idea that the government brings to the party all the things we need to have a society that isn't a bunch of people slinging poo at each other in trees is a bit of an axiom at best. 

Does that clear up what I am saying? One thing I would like to be clearer on is that I am not really advocating a particular society. Although I do have views on what this would be. I am just explaining why i think it is ok to consider that you don't have a government. Nor do I wish to impose my views on you, I am merely just explaining my position. But am a little aware I am probably sounding preachy. I hope I ain't being preachy. Thanks also for engaging in positive manner. Sometimes on the internet people forget to do that so ta for not being that. You can have a license to use the internet in my made up hypothetical utopia. 

 

i guess i just don't see the difference to how things operate now. the laws of the land largely are to protect individuals from harm be it physical, financial, mental etc so i would say that the government have set out these laws in order to keep the society that you refer to. people still break these laws, but face punishments as a result. so you say you want a society that has rules but not rulers...who enforces these rules? maybe we're going to go around in circles, as it sounds like you have sufficient faith in humanity that people will just be nice to each other which i fundamentally disagree with

you say that we can figure out a system whereby things like driving licenses are possible without a government...taking your specific example of a scuba diving license, i presume that gives you the ability to instruct scuba diving? because i can go and buy myself an oxygen tank, take myself to the beach, and start scuba diving. there's no law that prevents me from doing that. i go back to what i said above, who enforces these regulations if you want to keep things like a driving license? because if it's worth the same as (with resepct) your scuba diving license, then you're still going to get unlicenced drivers on the road

you've given a lot of information on here and there's still plenty i'm not understanding so feel free to drop it if you want...maybe i just can't comprehend a society with no government to keep things in check

Edited July 17, 2023 by tomav84
grammar

[mjmooney]

On 16/07/2023 at 17:40, Daveburnside said:

There's only one thing worse than someone who believes every conspiracy theory, and that's someone who believes none. 

 

[Rds1983]

10 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

 

These are pretty nutty, but I'm fairly certain that Princess Diana wasn't a conspiracy theory and she did actually exist.

[mjmooney]

Anyway, shouldn't this be in Off Topic? 

[sidcow]

9 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Anyway, shouldn't this be in Off Topic? 

Don't be governed by rules man. 

[Jono62]

Wait until you hear about his theory about frogs and the water.

[Talldarkandransome]

On 15/07/2023 at 13:02, Wurzel said:

Talking to water that's what, watch and marvel...........

 

 

Thats smart water

 

 

Lad