(09-11-2018, 02:21 PM)Amaterasu Solar Wrote: While I agree that technically the three Laws of Ethics subsume sovereignty, without those Laws, society could not function, as psychopaths did as They choose, and pandemonium would result. The positive thing here, and why I do not consider the Laws as truly being oppressive to sovereignty, is that most of Us live within these Laws naturally. We all know that hurting or killing the flesh of anOther, without fully informed consent, is wrong. We know that taking or damaging things, without fully informed consent, that do not belong to Us alone is wrong. We know it's wrong to defraud Others. And in a system that is based on social currency, accounted for in Our hearts and minds, to be sure, breaking these Laws will cost LOTS of social currency.
Well, that right there is one of the major differences between our philosophies - I believe "society" to be a vastly overrated thing, something that was invented by psychopaths to control others with. It's why I live in the woods and generally avoid society as much as I can. If I ever decide I need someone else to tell me what to do or how to think, I'll give them a permission slip to do so.
I will just assume that, in your envisioned society, some other person trying to damage me constitutes "fully informed consent" for me to clean their clock, and we could agree on that point. Another point you raise, taking or damaging things that don't belong to us alone, raises another question. In this society you envision, how is "ownership" to be determined? How do I know objectively that something belongs to me alone, so that I might move it to a corner or burn it to the ground if I so choose?
As far as "social currency" goes, if I shun society as I do, then I've not got very much social currency, and therefore not much to lose. How am I supposed to pay up to society if I'm not part of their currency system?
Quote:What We have today is Some being given authority over Others. In what I propose, We ALL have authority over only Those who choose to behave unEthically, but no One is "in charge," making rules for Others to follow. Anarchy means no rulers, NOT no rules. There are three We need to maintain a healthy society.
This is another point I have a problem with - how can "we ALL" have authority over anyone else without a collective? I, individually, have any authority I care to exercise, and you, individually, have any authority you care to exercise. When "we ALL" have authority, that is pretty much the definition of a collective, is it not? How does it differ from what we have now?
In any human society, there are strong folk, and there are weak folk. Inevitably, because of human nature, some of those strong folk will take from the weaker victim sort of folk. Since they are not strong, they cannot defend themselves, and someone else will have to step in and defend them if they are to be defended at all. Who does that in your envisioned society? Anyone? If that greedy strong person is not a threat to me, but only a threat to his weak neighbor, from whence do I derive the right to step in? Or do we just let the greedy strong eat the weak, so long as they are not threatening us personally?
Quote:The Laws of Ethics are well defined. We can't "redefine" these - like... "Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of another...unless You're super pissed." This is not to say that in Self defense One cannot kill anOther bent on hurting/killing Oneself.
Who defined those laws of Ethics? I didn't get to vote on them - does that mean they don't apply to me, since I did not give explicit, informed consent?
Quote:It is not a "collective" but a stigmergic system of autonomous Individuals that will emerge. I loathe the whole idea of "collective."
As do I. I spent a few years fighting fairly vigorously against Collectives, only to watch my own nation get turned into one - which is why I dropped out of society to begin with. The problem with autonomous individuals is that we are all... autonomous. We feel no compelling need to adhere to any Laws, or social currency, ethical or otherwise, and as individuals, we all think differently. We have different ideas of how our lives ought to be run, and some have decidedly inimical (to others) ideas. I'm just not grasping how your envisioned society differs from (idealized) Communism.
Communism, always and without fail, in every place it has ever been tried, devolves into Oligarchy. That happens because the inimical sort of Strong folk will without fail prey on the Weak folk, and there is no one to stop them. "Society says..." you know?
Quote:As for Ethics... They are clearly and concisely defined in the three Laws. So in this jungle, it's ok if someOne is killing People for fun (being a psychopath) as long as They are not trying to kill You?
Yes. It's none of my business if I'm not directly involved, and none of my family (blood or extended) is, either. I spent way too much time fighting for other folks "freedom", only to have them give it up anyhow, and turn their backs on us (by "us" I mean myself and much better men than me, some of whom did not live nearly long enough to see what had become of what they fought for) and what they had been given, trample it under foot... turning silk purses into sows ears somehow... so they are no longer my problem.
Nowadays, I would not piss in their mouths if their teeth were on fire. They can take care of their own problems - after all, they created 'em.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’