it is because the question of what can be done with freewill has been so neglected and abused by those institutions in which the truth of the thesis is so critically important, that i am so adamant about taking the privilege of using the thesis, away from it. let us suppose that having freewill was never a question… and then let us look at what is expected of those who have it (say, in a court of law). in order to place blame and guilt upon the defendant, the court has to convince the defendant that the crime was not only illegal, but ‘wrong’, irrespective of it being illegal, and that the defendant was able to understand (and agree on) the ‘wrongful’ nature of the crime, and finally that the defendant’s intention during the commission of the crime was not to do what he thought was reasonable, despite the coincidence of it being ‘wrong’. all three of these expectations are nonsense, and yet the court cannot proceed without them. for it is not enough to simply say ‘defendant x was the cause of crime y’, leave it at that, and punish him. this approach would be in the form of a strict consequentialism (which would dehumanize and reduce people to automatons), but the ethical foundation of the law is deontological; ergo, it has to justify its authority on the grounds that there are objective values of right and wrong and that everyone has both the knowledge of the values and the ability to transphenomenally choose freely among them (unless they’re deemed insane).
now until this point it wasn’t at all gravely important whether or not we really have freewill, because the consequences of that thesis being true or not had no such gravity yet. what i have done is show you a place where the truth or falsity of the thesis is incredibly important in regards to honesty and competence… and there is no other place than a court of law in which such virtues matter so much. so by revealing this fundamental flaw, i’ve essentially torn the foundation out from under the civil contract of western civilization. i’ve killed the epistemological head and the body has followed.
so what you don’t yet realize is that this is a dead horse and has been for centuries. the privilege of granting the thesis of freewill has been thoroughly abused where it matters the most, and this is even after the fact that i’m granting a thesis which isn’t true in the first place. give them an inch and they take a mile.
what is left to do is restructure everything from bottom to top if one wishes to participate in a lawful society that is honest and competent. nobody has to do this, of course, and can continue living as the ignorant buffoons that they are presently. it makes no difference to me; it’s all quality entertainment. but if you want to do what you guys call the ‘right’ thing, what you guys always thought you had founded your civilization on, but had not, you’ll begin by taking a critical look at society to root out the things that make the compound nature of these problems possible at all. i’ve written extensively about these things over the years, but have never felt it was important to inform a few random people at a forum of this information… so while there is a consistent system of thought here, there is no organization to any of it. here and there i drop a gem, and then walk away.
but all these ideas are moving in a single direction, a straight line, toward a basic premise; here is a way to stop this nonsense. if you do not accept this way, stop complaining about crime, because we anarchists aren’t going to hear it. in fact, if you keep bitching, we just might turn it up a notch.