RE: The Illusion of Legality
Let's toss in some variables here, like hunger, a loved one's illness, would you steal or even kill if you were starving? What about this scenario, would you let doctors commit your loved one, or would you kill them and flee with your loved one?
i don't really know, i haven't starved in my life to a point where something like that crosses my mind, and im not comfortable to say that i wouldn't.
Would I take on a wild predator with my bare hands, I mean what really prevents me from doing that, just out of the blue.
nothing really prevents you, doing that to a wild animal nor a human.
No it doesn't, the fear of being CAUGHT prevents you from doing these things, there is still the incentive of getting away with it
yeah i should have worded that part better.
wo of those characters (desperate or determined) could very hypothetically be anyone with a snap of a finger
i think people don't become desperate or determined in a snap of hes fingers, that's a severe bipolar disorder, and using an extreme as a baseline is disingenuous, because surely you don't believe that anyone can just suddenly become desperate, or even determined....
It's not a contract, implying so is not correct. Something that is hardly correct, doesn't provide structure, people do. People choosing to honor things that aren't agreed on like the silver rule create structure, their inherent choices, they create structure. The motivation behind those choices aren't "because I don't want to go to jail" but "this is what I think is best in this situation" which is driven by instinct, like starving, or death.
so what i was trying to imply was,that rules that are enforced by government are creating boundaries that multiple people can co-exist under.If we would live under no laws, i personally think that it would become survival of the fittest.And i doubt that you would perfer that or anyone else wants that.
That's a false dilemma, it's not either order or chaos. The two aren't exclusive to each other, what is chaos to the fly is order to the spider.
hmmm this is a good one. I wonder if i due have a too extreme look on it... i don't know.To me it does seem like, opposing something like a government on there laws would lead to something volatile,and very easy to sway by agendas. As in if rules where decided democratically.
I think you take for granted the fact that what you consider benefit is nothing short of extortion, and what we consider negative, is the absurdity of some can levy tax, some can create rules, some can enforce them, while nobody else has these rights.
Someone has to be at the top,and if no one is. Then surely someone will try to be there, serving hes own interests. And i think that would cause more harm then good.
and for you last question... I don't think highly of myself, and i don't think highly of communities. I truly think that people can't govern over themselves, and that they constantly are in a pursuit of leaders,Dictators, or gods or what ever they want to follow.It does feel like people are a flock of sheep that need guidance . And if someone has to be in power why not the government ? Don't get me wrong, some of the taxation is very unfair,but what i would imagine is that i don't understand why there is a tax for that in the firstplace, and thus don't fully understand why something is taxes, leaving a benefit of the doubt that a reason exists.
btw very great comment, while i don't fully agree with everyhthing you said, some of the things did make me think about my own stance.
Surely you can consider hypothetical situations that could make one desperate or determined.
You're saying someone has to extort people and victimize them, because if someone doesn't do it "officially" someone else will do it. What's the reason for that, why does someone need to be at the top, why do we need people to tell us how to live and how much we need to pay for our own protection?
If you don't think people are capable of making choices for themselves how could you even form an argument since doing so means choosing for yourself.
You just said that people cannot be trusted to chose for themselves, but they can be trusted to chose for others?
if you are forced to pay, then it is wrong, it is wrong for me to force you to pay your benefit. It circles back, people aren't capable of choosing for themselves, but some are allowed to force everyone else to pay, otherwise known as extortion. If people aren't capable to chose for themselves, how can others be capable to force things for everyone?
You're saying that as long as you don't fully understand why someone stole, or robbed someone, that it leaves the benefit of doubt as to "was that theft, was that a robbery". In the end, saying "a reason exists" is meaningless, because the reason could be extortion, the reason could be force, the reason could be criminal, just as much as it could be the opposite.
i mean you do realize that im on a blog replying with a comment, that was fixed up in like 2minutes, and i don't pretend to know why laws are the way they are. And im also not speaking from a divine truth standpoint, most of the things what i've said are subjective, so i don't really understand why are you trying to deeply over analyze a comment ona blogpost
That is what people usually do under the post, they have a conversation, they discuss things, they ask questions. It's hardly "deeply over analyze". You can call asking questions in reply to the discussion beforehand as trying to deeply over analyze a comment, but what most people expect from the comment section is people asking questions, and analyzing things, or otherwise offering their thoughts, doubts and inquiries.