Yuyutsu,

It sounds like you’re dismissing rationality outright because of it's based on underlying assumptions, but it's the most reliable tool we have for navigating situations.

Regardless of the wide variety of assumptions out there, rationality still remains a powerful tool for finding common ground. Science, law, and moral systems all rely on rational frameworks to determine what’s true or just. Verification, debate, and re-examination ensure their reliability, so arbitrary assumptions aren't a hurdle.

You’re seeing laws as instruments of fear. But without them, society would descend into anarchy, where might would make right. You mention not benefiting from others' suffering, but laws exist precisely to minimise suffering. Functioning societies don’t rely on chaos or gut feelings to make decisions about justice or public safety.

Functioning societies don’t rely on chaos or gut feelings to make decisions about justice or public safety.

Participation isn’t futile as you make it sound. The abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, the suffrage movement - all took time but they got there in the end because people participated even when everything seemed to be stacked against them.

When I say the social contract balances interests, I don’t mean that there are no principles or that right and wrong don’t matter. It’s not a case of "might makes right." It's about finding common ground so that society can function without descending into chaos. You may disagree with certain laws, but the system also gives you the tools to challenge them in a constructive way.

You have some fundamental misunderstandings skewing your perception about some basic very assumptions that most of us take for granted. As a result, you're misinterpreting motives and jumping at shadows.

Dear John,

«It sounds like you’re dismissing rationality outright because of it's based on underlying assumptions»

I don't dismiss rationality - I use rationality myself, I just realise its limited scope and that the truths it can produce are only relative truths - relative to the correctness of the underlying assumptions, which even theoretically with the best of "luck" can never be absolutely true because Reality cannot be condensed into words and concepts.

«You’re seeing laws as instruments of fear.»

This is not a conspiracy theory and I am not claiming that legislators in general do it for the deliberate purpose of instilling fear, but can you deny the fear that laws produce even among the ordinary normative and conscientious population?

That fear, humiliation, upset and sense of helplessness and despair are likely even more prevalent among the innocent normative population than among criminals who flout the law anyway.

«But without them, society would descend into anarchy»

There will not be anarchy because (as a figure of speech, please don't take me too literally) God rules supreme.
But then, as I understood so far, you do not believe the same, you believe in chaos, hence you rationally imply, and with perfect logic, that men must rule over other men, even violently against their will, should that be necessary, even when those being ruled over never wanted anything to do with you in the first place.

Can you see now that since my faith is fundamentally different to yours, there cannot be any social contract between us?

Yes I know, many church-goers may sing on Sundays that God rules supreme, but fail to use rational logic to understand the implications, or maybe they believe in God only on Sundays and in chaos the rest of the week...

«You mention not benefiting from others' suffering»

Not benefiting from being the agent for others' suffering, to be more precise.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«but laws exist precisely to minimise suffering.»

That may be the intention, maybe even a good intention, but in reality nobody can prevent another from suffering. Once someone did something bad, they will have to pay for it accordingly and suffer no matter what: one could say (as a figure of speech) that God sees to it that they suffer the consequences of their actions, that none of which can escape his oversight.

But then, if you believe in chaos, then I perfectly understand why you conclude that laws can reduce sufferings.

«Functioning societies don’t rely on chaos or gut feelings to make decisions about justice or public safety.»

For that you would first need to show me a functioning society.
A society where people are coerced to follow laws (moreover when it is a system of laws they never freely consented to have anything to do with), and live in fear is, in my view, a dysfunctional society.

A society that attempts to produce justice, duplicating the justice that is already inherent in the universe, is as ridiculous as that king who commands the sun to rise and set at the exact times when the sun would do so anyway.

As for safety, the only way to be safe is to refrain from doing evil, nothing else can save you, but those who believe in chaos shrug it as "accidents".

«Participation isn’t futile as you make it sound.»

Things changed historically once majorities opposed slavery and supported suffrage.
However, the majority still believes in chaos and therefore expects or wishes the state to save them (ultimately from themselves), which it cannot, but they believe that it can.

I can't see that changing in my lifetime.


«It's about finding common ground so that society can function without descending into chaos.»

How is common ground possible between those who believe that the default is chaos and those who understand that we live in a God-given cosmos?

The Albanese government and the Greens closed down free speech in the Senate by prohibiting Pauline Hanson from tabling a motion on the the ability of people to tick a box on the next census form gender/sex identification. They prevented any discussion on the matter. This is an alarming precedent.

Dear Ttbn,

The whole concept of a census is pure evil, so much that even the Bible forbade kings to conduct them.

Nevertheless, I just read that these new questions will be optional so one will be able to not respond to them without incurring hefty fines.

Assuming that to be true, what is the fuss about? Why not object instead to the other questions which remain compulsory?

One thing you may consider is taking an overseas holiday to avoid the census - I did it once, I may do so again in 2026.

Hardly a surprise ttbn. I think the referendum taught Albo that intimidation and biased fact checking aren't enough. He needs to censor opposing views as happened to Pauline. Of course, he could try governing well and stand on his merits.