Foundational Rights

[Amaterasu Solar]

We have rights that are Ours - as long as We choose Our behaviors Ethically...  Looking forward to thoughts!

[Wallfire]

Nice to see you back 
Ok an interesting video, but there is one thing worries me and that is who decides what is ethical.
All the worlds evil leaders and psychopaths think or believe that they behave ethically. You have good ideas but its a very slippy slope and I for one would not want to live is a world that has fluid understanding of what is ethical.
There is a basic law.
" The people with power decide what is ethical " 
Nothing is written in stone and everything can and will be corrupted for money and power.
Remember a psychopath always has some one or something controlling them, there is always a puppet master.

[Amaterasu Solar]

Nice to see you back 

Humble thanks!

[BIAD]

Humble thanks!

I'm with Wallfire, welcome back!
When you first proposed the notion that what we're seeing everyday in the political forum was a all-around 'reality-TV' show
with psychopaths performing in order to outrage the public with their strange set of ethics, I was dubious and decided to
look for fair, neutral evidence.



Damn you, you were right! It's not all of it... but there's a definite script-like manner that explains why my spidey-sense has
been tingling for so long!
Thank you.

Here's a clue. This commentator is correct in regards of CNN's report on Alex Jones being kicked off Twitter.
An article needs to be written up, sub-edited and checked for libel, then posted. The article was online two minutes
after Twitter announced Jones' ban.

[guohua]

The problem I see with those ethical rights that are mentioned.
The Powers incharge don't agree with my ethical rights the way I see them, they are all about the votes of the Touchy Feely Group of Girly-Men and Manly-Women and Illegals with Anchor Babies.

The Rich and Powerful Political Elites (Robert Kennedy murder of Mary Jo Kopechne) also the Silicon Valley Elites then you have the Hollywood Elites deciding your Moral Ethics. 

Assholes, Scum and Cesspool Dwellers All of them!

[Amaterasu Solar]

Humble thanks!

I'm with Wallfire, welcome back!
When you first proposed the notion that what we're seeing everyday in the political forum was a all-around 'reality-TV' show
with psychopaths performing in order to outrage the public with their strange set of ethics, I was dubious and decided to
look for fair, neutral evidence.



Damn you, you were right! It's not all of it... but there's a definite script-like manner that explains why my spidey-sense has
been tingling for so long!
Thank you.

Here's a clue. This commentator is correct in regards of CNN's report on Alex Jones being kicked off Twitter.
An article needs to be written up, sub-edited and checked for libel, then posted. The article was online two minutes
after Twitter announced Jones' ban.

From what I can tell, everything on the MSM "news" has been manufactured for a purpose - either to outrage or to build a perception (like OMG!  GUNS are the problem!  Get rid of guns!).  They create "problems," manufacture the "reaction" (telling Us how We're reacting), and then pushing through Their "solution" (like legislating away Our rights).  NOTHING gets on the nightly "news" that They cannot control the narrative of.

[Amaterasu Solar]

The problem I see with those ethical rights that are mentioned.
The Powers incharge don't agree with my ethical rights the way I see them, they are all about the votes of the Touchy Feely Group of Girly-Men and Manly-Women and Illegals with Anchor Babies.

The Rich and Powerful Political Elites (Robert Kennedy murder of Mary Jo Kopechne) also the Silicon Valley Elites then you have the Hollywood Elites deciding your Moral Ethics. 

Assholes, Scum and Cesspool Dwellers All of them!

Then take Them out of the "incharge" position.  Do not consent to that whole system, but do not create controversy by refusing Their offer to make You subject.  Make a counter offer:  "I will be happy to [be subject, do as You request, whatever] IF You prove I am subject.  WHen enough of Us are doing this, They will have no power to bully (which only proves that They can be bullies and NOT that We are subject - there is NO PROOF that any of Us are subject once We have withdrawn consent), as the rest of Us will arrest the bullies.

Yes, it's a struggle and requires a lot of strength and resolve to choose this path Now...  But if We do not, the psychopaths will manage complete control, monitoring each of Us 24/7, cutting off Our access to Our slavery units (money) if We do not toe Their lines...  So....  I am suggesting We do this.  [smile]

[BIAD]

Then take Them out of the "incharge" position.
Do not consent to that whole system, but do not create controversy by refusing Their offer to make You subject...

This is where the confusion is, the simple request to do something that many perceive beyond as
beyond rational.
It's like asking people to fly when everything that they're ingrained with tells them it's impossible.

Then the arguments start and the discussion meets an impasse. One cannot do something correctly
without instructions and would be unwilling to do without 'seeing' what it all exactly means.
(Said with all respect)

[Amaterasu Solar]

Then take Them out of the "incharge" position.
Do not consent to that whole system, but do not create controversy by refusing Their offer to make You subject...

This is where the confusion is, the simple request to do something that many perceive beyond as
beyond rational.
It's like asking people to fly when everything that they're ingrained with tells them it's impossible.

Then the arguments start and the discussion meets an impasse. One cannot do something correctly
without instructions and would be unwilling to do without 'seeing' what it all exactly means.
(Said with all respect)

What is "correctly...?"  It does not matter what THEIR system says, if You do not consent, Their "laws" are not applicable.  Yes, Many will struggle with this idea, but I imagine when enough of Us have it and are using it, even the Ones who struggle Now will begin to grasp.  What "arguments" are You envisioning?  I will never argue.  I will only repeat My offer.  If I am bullied to a jail/prison, when I get to court, I still repeat My offer....

[BIAD]

What is "correctly...?"  It does not matter what THEIR system says, if You do not consent, Their "laws" are not applicable.
Yes, Many will struggle with this idea, but I imagine when enough of Us have it and are using it, even the Ones who struggle
Now will begin to grasp...

This is the difficult part for many, not consenting is a mental decision and in a physical state, means little
to anyone except the owner of that consent. I appreciate your patience with this, but if you can imagine
someone nonchalantly saying that up is down and everyone should realise it, it's quite a concept to get
one's head around as a 'real' act.

...What "arguments" are You envisioning?  I will never argue.  I will only repeat My offer.
If I am bullied to a jail/prison, when I get to court, I still repeat My offer....

I chose my sentencing poorly, I meant the possible semi-aggressive back-and-forth when trying to see past
the confusion.

[Wallfire]

AS wrote   What is "correctly...?"  It does not matter what THEIR system says, if You do not consent, Their "laws" are not applicable.  Yes, Many will struggle with this idea.

This sounds like the basic belief system of the Christian religion, " turn the other cheek"
So if I may ask, are you not just forming another religion ??

[Ninurta]

I can see your point, and agree with it to a degree. It becomes troubling when introducing the concept of "ethics" and trying to commingle it with "sovereignty". The notion of "ethics" implies an agreed-upon framework, and to consent to that is to subsume your sovereignty, your authority over yourself, to a "higher power" - unless you alone (and every other being on the planet, also alone) define those ethics individually, each for themselves. The instant you agree to work within a framework constructed by other than yourself, alone, you have abdicated your sovereignty in favor of communal rules - which is what we have on this planet today, under every government.

I subscribe to the Law of the Jungle. Each individual has an absolute right to defend his or her Self by any means they can devise or acquire. Each individual has an absolute right to be left alone - and may enforce that right by means of the first law. Each individual has an absolute right to feed, clothe, and house them-self by any means at their disposal.

Who defines your ethics? I have a suspicion that your ethics may conflict with mine, and I will not subject myself to the ethics of another - if I'm going to do that, I may as well be living under a government. The end result is always the same. Other folks' rules are other folks' rules, whether "government", "society" or any other collective grouping.

Rights are "rights" because they cannot be legislated away. The government didn't issue mine to me, so thy have no claim on them to legislate them away. Likewise, No one, but NO ONE, has the right to decide if I am behaving "ethically", since they do not have the right to decide my ethics for me.

[Amaterasu Solar]

What is "correctly...?"  It does not matter what THEIR system says, if You do not consent, Their "laws" are not applicable.
Yes, Many will struggle with this idea, but I imagine when enough of Us have it and are using it, even the Ones who struggle
Now will begin to grasp...

This is the difficult part for many, not consenting is a mental decision and in a physical state, means little
to anyone except the owner of that consent. I appreciate your patience with this, but if you can imagine
someone nonchalantly saying that up is down and everyone should realise it, it's quite a concept to get
one's head around as a 'real' act.

...What "arguments" are You envisioning?  I will never argue.  I will only repeat My offer.
If I am bullied to a jail/prison, when I get to court, I still repeat My offer....

I chose my sentencing poorly, I meant the possible semi-aggressive back-and-forth when trying to see past
the confusion.

Though it may seem to be that it means nothing when one Individual withdraws consent, consenting to better, when enough of Us are, it will mean everything.  And as I suggest in Setting Myself FREE, there will be impacts from Individuals confronted by the systems the psychopaths control.  Yes, We may still be bullied for now, but when enough of Us take back Our sovereignty, the order followers in that system will be outnumbered.

[Amaterasu Solar]

AS wrote   What is "correctly...?"  It does not matter what THEIR system says, if You do not consent, Their "laws" are not applicable.  Yes, Many will struggle with this idea.

This sounds like the basic belief system of the Christian religion, " turn the other cheek"
So if I may ask, are you not just forming another religion ??

Sorry, but I am not grasping how You can relate taking One's sovereignty back, thereby gaining freedom from the unEthical systems in place now, with religion and turning cheeks.  Can You clarify?

What I propose is a foundation for Human society to emerge from that is truly free and Ethical.  Hardly a religion, as One may carry whatever religion One wants - full freedom to do so.  All that is expected of any One is that They choose Their behaviors Ethically (within the three Laws of Ethics).  Society could not function if the vast majority did not follow those three Laws - which We do already in high enough percentages.

[Amaterasu Solar]

I can see your point, and agree with it to a degree. It becomes troubling when introducing the concept of "ethics" and trying to commingle it with "sovereignty". The notion of "ethics" implies an agreed-upon framework, and to consent to that is to subsume your sovereignty, your authority over yourself, to a "higher power" - unless you alone (and every other being on the planet, also alone) define those ethics individually, each for themselves. The instant you agree to work within a framework constructed by other than yourself, alone, you have abdicated your sovereignty in favor of communal rules - which is what we have on this planet today, under every government.

I subscribe to the Law of the Jungle. Each individual has an absolute right to defend his or her Self by any means they can devise or acquire. Each individual has an absolute right to be left alone - and may enforce that right by means of the first law. Each individual has an absolute right to feed, clothe, and house them-self by any means at their disposal.

Who defines your ethics? I have a suspicion that your ethics may conflict with mine, and I will not subject myself to the ethics of another - if I'm going to do that, I may as well be living under a government. The end result is always the same. Other folks' rules are other folks' rules, whether "government", "society" or any other collective grouping.

Rights are "rights" because they cannot be legislated away. The government didn't issue mine to me, so thy have no claim on them to legislate them away. Likewise, No one, but NO ONE, has the right to decide if I am behaving "ethically", since they do not have the right to decide my ethics for me.

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.

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.

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.

It is not a "collective" but a stigmergic system of autonomous Individuals that will emerge.  I loathe the whole idea of "collective."

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?

[Wallfire]

AS wrote   What is "correctly...?"  It does not matter what THEIR system says, if You do not consent, Their "laws" are not applicable.  Yes, Many will struggle with this idea.

This sounds like the basic belief system of the Christian religion, " turn the other cheek"
So if I may ask, are you not just forming another religion ??

Sorry, but I am not grasping how You can relate taking One's sovereignty back, thereby gaining freedom from the unEthical systems in place now, with religion and turning cheeks.  Can You clarify?

What I propose is a foundation for Human society to emerge from that is truly free and Ethical.  Hardly a religion, as One may carry whatever religion One wants - full freedom to do so.  All that is expected of any One is that They choose Their behaviors Ethically (within the three Laws of Ethics).  Society could not function if the vast majority did not follow those three Laws - which We do already in high enough percentages.

One must remember that ethics as such are not natural, it have been formed over time by different religions, and at the moment based in the civilized world on the teachings of the Christian church. The church has 10 commandments, you make do with 3. Ethics will not work without some form of "turn the other cheek" and forgiveness. These are the two important factors( there are many more) that need to be integrated into any system if one does not wish to have war all the time.

[Amaterasu Solar]

AS wrote   What is "correctly...?"  It does not matter what THEIR system says, if You do not consent, Their "laws" are not applicable.  Yes, Many will struggle with this idea.

This sounds like the basic belief system of the Christian religion, " turn the other cheek"
So if I may ask, are you not just forming another religion ??

Sorry, but I am not grasping how You can relate taking One's sovereignty back, thereby gaining freedom from the unEthical systems in place now, with religion and turning cheeks.  Can You clarify?

What I propose is a foundation for Human society to emerge from that is truly free and Ethical.  Hardly a religion, as One may carry whatever religion One wants - full freedom to do so.  All that is expected of any One is that They choose Their behaviors Ethically (within the three Laws of Ethics).  Society could not function if the vast majority did not follow those three Laws - which We do already in high enough percentages.

One must remember that ethics as such are not natural, it have been formed over time by different religions, and at the moment based in the civilized world on the teachings of the Christian church. The church has 10 commandments, you make do with 3. Ethics will not work without some form of "turn the other cheek" and forgiveness. These are the two important factors( there are many more) that need to be integrated into any system if one does not wish to have war all the time.

I fully disagree.  In societies where abundance was available (scant number of them), these Laws were expected.  No One killed or robbed or defrauded - for if They did, the rest would solve for the problem(s) the unEthical behavior was creating.  And there was virtually no MOTIVE to break the Laws.  In societies who lived in scarcity (actual, or like ours, artificial) the motive was there to kill, rob, defraud.  Desperation alone motivates Many past the Ethical line.

I don't see why Ethics "will not work without some form of "turn the other cheek" and forgiveness."  Especially when Our planet's abundance is flowing freely.  Can You elaborate on this?

[Wallfire]

What you write I can never agree with, how we see the world is just too different. I have come to respect you but will never agree with your point of view. I have zero need to convert you to how I think, i am thankful that we can talk. All i can say is I do respect your writings and find them important. I believe you write from the heart, and that means a lot to me

[Amaterasu Solar]

What you write I can never agree with, how we see the world is just too different. I have come to respect you but will never agree with your point of view. I have zero need to convert you to how I think, i am thankful that we can talk. All i can say is I do respect your writings and find them important. I believe you write from the heart, and that means a lot to me

Well, I will admit to being disappointed that You (cannot?  Will not?) explain WHY You disagree, how this "turning cheeks and forgiving" enters into it, and this question:  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? But I will accept that You are not in a position to, whatever the reason.

And yes, everything I do I do from the heart.

[Wallfire]

I chose not to, and I hope you will come to understand that putting words in to my mouth or trying to bate me does not work. Respect is my leaving point