Well, unless one goes and registers some law he declares for himself with some committee, and then that committee passes it on to some law enforcement agency that comes down on him, and only him, whenever he is seen or reported to have violated his own law, I can imagine no other sense in which the law subsists except as just a promise one makes to himself in his own head. If one finds himself breaking his own law, does he haul himself off to jail?
This talks about a law above the laws of man. How does this play out in a practical sense?
If someone makes a “law” for themselves pertaining to money, “always do XXX” and they become wealthy from following that law, most likely others will do the same. No one had to force anyone nor punish anyone. The consequences of not following a personal law is that the world doesn’t treat you as you would have preferred. And the way to get others to obey the law themselves is simply to demonstrate it and let them decide if they want to do it.
You have apparently lived under such mind bending oppression for so long that you can’t imagine anything existing except oppression, jails, and coercion; "What is the best thing to force everyone into doing or kill them for not doing?".
I didn’t know you were such a religious extremist.
We shouldn’t just watch how the disaster as the only alternative comes up to us. The probability that no one survives this disaster is just too high. We can also not have a “communal particle” without any law, and a law is not always merely fore one but for all in that little society, even then, if a law merely refers to the “recognition of association between definitions such as to reveal an associated definitional truth” (definional logic). Since the end of the Stone Age the humans have been living with written laws. Maybe that our goal is a new Stone Age anyway or even the death of all human beings, but is that really desirable? You know, we have this “global society”, and socially we can only start from a point of that “global society”. This “global society” is full of laws, regulated markets - in the EU there is a law which dictates even the angle degree of the banana curve. So should we do nothing else than await the disaster? We can’t start with the goal. That is impossible. The goal could be a “communal particle”, but the way to it can only be the way from the “global society” to the “communal particle”. The only alternative to it is to continue with the “global society” as the way to the disaster (see above: catastrophe).
It works theoretically, and it would work practically too, if the rulers weren’t against it. They are against it because they profit by the current population policy, by the current employment market which is mostly a regulated market (cp. cheap workers), and orther regulated markets, a huge bureaucratic policy. Put it away!
Please think about it before replying too quickly, too rashly.
I would also prefer to continue with the “global society”, if the global(ictic) problems were not so huge. We can also accelerate the coming of the disaster (cp. ochlocarcy, anarchy, nihilism) and hope that after it, if any human will survive that disaster, we will start with a new way of life, a new culture, and/or, for example, a “communal particle”.
I hope that someday (and hopefully before it will be too late) my suggestions will be accepted.
The main reasons for the disability of the Western states, if we can call them still so, are - amongst others (for example: cultural decadence = the so-called “civilisation”) - the structure of the power, the bureaucracy, thus the overregulated markets and societies, the dictatorship on the one dirty hand and the ochlocracy on the other dirty hand.
And by the way: the global market is so over-regulated that almost any change can only mean a less regulated market.
I don’t disagree with any of that, but I do think that you are missing a critical issue.
In that Son of God thread, I mentioned that The Law is one that can be applied in “ALL situations” and that means even during the time when there is globalist socialism and when the rulers don’t agree with it. It doesn’t need for them to agree with it, because until they do, it doesn’t apply to them, just like everyone else.
You are suggesting oppressing people into a better tomorrow, “it will be best for them”. Perhaps it will be. But how can you actually know other than to guess from what disinformation you have been given thus far? And more importantly, if the rulers don’t like it, what will be the consequences of people trying to force other people into doing it? If it isn’t voluntary, you are asking for a world of hurt, quite literally, as in “world war”.
What I am suggesting is to focus on and learn of the one thing that anyone can do that leads to the unquestionable best result, not merely my guess at it, nor yours. And that one law is independent of whatever the rulers like or dislike. The only thing they could do against it is to do what they are already doing, keep it confusing and inconceivable to do anything but what THEY want.
You’re funny James. You’re like Eric: expecting absolute and immediate adherence to your view no matter how incoherent or radical–no room for questions even–for any questions raised set off alarm bells in your head screaming: Doubter! Not to be trusted. You’d do terrible in an interview.
What you’re describing is just not a law–that’s all I’m saying.
I agree that the community would learn vicariously from the success of others. Strongmen would steal from, murder, and rape the weak, living off the spoils of what they take. Other strongmen would see this, the success of it, and do the same. The weak would be helpless having no recourse to do anything about it. Over time, you’d see the emergence of the same old patterns we have seen in history. Civilization would start over, have to learn the same lessons over, go through the same catastrophes and disasters, and ultimate arrive at where we are today.
Now, I understand that there are many on this board, like you and LM, who would relish in the prospect of this outcome, thinking yourselves as amongst the strongmen, so I don’t expect you to recoil at the image, but I want to make it clear that this is what we’re talking about.
And why is this? Is it because the productive consist of couples each of which is holding down a full time job and has no time for children?
And why would the “less productive” being limited to no less and no more than one child per adult resolve this?
Besides all that, I would think having no children is the best way to accumulate wealth. Only have to distribute it amongst two people in a couple (assuming one works and one doesn’t) or only one’s self (if they both work or one is single).
But if you’re talking about the need for children in order to keep civilization going into future generations, I agree, but that necessarily entails a limit on wealth as income must be distributed at least amongst the children.
What is really funny, aka “dumb”, is that you keep talking about things that I haven’t said nor implied, “strawman”. I said nothing at all about “No LAWS!!” and nothing at all about “Doubter! Not to be trusted”. Where is your brain?
Well first, that is obviously NOT “all you are saying”, but more importantly it isn’t true. The only law that you or anyone can actually impose without coercion is one upon yourself. If you suggest that other people go along with it, then they are imposing upon themselves. But if you decide to impose a law upon anyone who hasn’t gone along with it, you have just entered the very realm that you mention here;
You have just described your way, forcing people into submission to a law, the way that has been actually going on for thousands of years. I am suggesting a different way that doesn’t involve coercing people into involuntary obedience and yet accomplishes the very thing that you say that you favor. Apparently to you, a “law” means “forcing submission on those who don’t want to comply”; “Comply or Die!”.
How about saying something relevant to what I really have said instead of your strawman imagined bullshit?
(1.) Currently the “less-productive” people have still too many children and therefore they can’t become as rich as the more-productive people; (2.) the reasonably fair distribution of children (2.1) also increases the wealth, (2.2.) leads to (2.2.1.) more peace, (2.2.2.) more intelligence, (2.2.3.), more competence, (2.2.4.), more responsibilities, thus (2.2.4.1.) less pollution of the environment - that all because the more-productive people can also have children and the less-productive people can not have more children than the more-productive people. And that all is fair.
Yes and no (more no) because having no children would merely be the best way to accumulate wealth then (and only then), if there were not two risks: (A) the risk of losing competence and skills because there were not enough children who could learn those competence and skills; (B) becoming unfertile (that would be the end anyway).
So having no children can only be the best way to accumulate wealth for a short time, for a long time having no children is fatal, killing.
I friendly advise you to read a good book on demography, preferably both demography and economics.
You mean that the children must profit from this development, right? If yes, then: of course, that is one of the main reasons why we must change the current expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations.
Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania.
We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, …, in short: our offspring.
What I’m describing is not “your” way or “my” way–it’s simply what will happen. Without any laws (er, sorry, with laws you impose only on yourself), there’s nothing stopping strongmen from preying on the weak. They’ll just do what they want, take what they want, harm whomever they want.
I’m all for a system in which there is no coercion, whether by brutality or by law enforcement, but you have yet to convince me that this system will just spring up as soon as we abolish all laws. Your first challenge might be to explain why this system doesn’t just manifest itself now. Just because we have laws now doesn’t mean people can’t learn vicariously from the success of others–and they do–but there is still crime, rape, theft, and murder–obviously, not everyone wants to follow in the footsteps of the successful.
I’m not sure I quite got that. Sounds like you’re say that all the money that has to be spent on the less-productive’s huge families will be unnecessary when they limit the number of children they have to one/adult, and so that money will be redistributed to the more-productive, meaning that they don’t have to spend as much time working for it and therefore can use that extra time to raise children.
But some things don’t add up: How is it that a couple without children has to spend all their time working just to scrape by while a couple with several children and who work less (because of lack of time) has enough money to feed several mouths? I would think the trend would work in reverse. Having several children would force a couple to work long hours just to make enough money to feed all those little mouths, whereas a couple without children wouldn’t have to work nearly as hard just to feed themselves.
And why do you imagine wealth being redistributed the way you describe? Suppose we take a couple from your “less-productive” class. They’re less productive because, with all their children, they have no time to work. But we limit the number of children they can have to one/adult. Now they have more time. They become more productive. They earn more money and become more wealthy. Seems like the wealth got “redistributed” back to themselves, not to the “more-productive” class.
I think we haven't been tested for a while so it's hard to say for sure. Things are not looking good, though. The primary problems right now are that whenever a scandal breaks, half the country inevitably thinks it's the other half of the country 'playing politics' and chooses not to believe it. The other half of the problem is that schools are aggressively teaching people not to have any loyalty to the machines of civil society other than the State. So yeah, I think the American spirit is still alive, but only because it takes a few generations for the oldsters to die off. The millennials are mostly just animals that will let the country fall apart. Correction, they are mostly just animals that are [i]hoping[/i] the country falls apart.
That doesn’t bode well. Better leave this thread open for a while longer on the off chance someone bright might think of a solution.
You would have been better off striking through “say” instead of “had”.
Making a commitment to yourself is a physical impossibility?
You can’t. I’m not saying it’s possible. I’m just saying the current system we have seems to be the best option available. Like I said, I’m all for a system in which there is no coercion, but you haven’t explained how that’s even possible.
Gib, one must explain every and any little thing to you, my little son.
Okay.
The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”. Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get money from the state, thus the taxpayers who have few or no children (so in the end there are merely less-productive people). Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human population will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say “yes”, then you have to say “yes” too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings?.
The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right, Gib - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in “short time”, “middle time”, and “long time”. What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this “global society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of our children, as I already said (here).
The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”, Gib. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don’t want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings, and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.
The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence, Gib (for you I have edited it in my last post, see: 2.2.2.). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.
Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive. Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive. Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive. Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.
No - because they also add up.
Egoism is on both sides, Gib. You can’t eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.
The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don’t want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.
You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.
The scapegoat is not always the typical Western middle class “bourgeois”, Gib.
Yes and no - because in that case the more-productive people have to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc… It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive who have become part of the more-productiveare more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the casethe case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.
It seems the falling apart process has already begun, though. If it falls apart in the next century it will be because of mistakes already made by the oldsters, and not the fault of the millenials, animals though they may be.
Those so-called “Millenials” will make even more mistakes beacuse made mistakes lead to more mistakes, especially then, if a society is a modern society which means: velociferic, accelerated in any case, expanded in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly ,… and so on, … and so on …, Uglypeoplefucking.
Gib, the welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck’s welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern “society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (here and here). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth. So the pictures again:
The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a “society” of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That’s a “good” outlook for our offspring, isn’t it, Gib?
Well, yeah. i was just getting at the fact that it’s not as if everything was going great until now, and the current generation (millenials or whatever you want to call them) are going to be the ones who fuck it all up. The point would be it’s already a shitshow - and the old are as much to blame as the young.
