Fester

Albanese has nothing meritable to stand on, in my opinion; no authoritarians do, and that's why they are authoritarians.

Yuyutsu,

I can see this conversation is going to drag on for weeks, and I’m starting to see why. So, to cut through the endless cycle, let’s address the rhetorical tactics and logical fallacies you keep using that are holding this discussion hostage:

Every time we focus on a concrete issue about society or governance, you derail it by bringing up abstract concepts like "absolute truth" or "divine justice." These philosophical ideas are interesting, sure, but they’re not relevant to the actual question at hand - how people, living in a shared society, manage fairness and justice in real terms. You can’t substitute philosophical speculation for practical solutions.

You’ve compared laws that protect people from harm with Orwellian totalitarianism, and frankly, that’s ridiculous. Just because laws exist to maintain order doesn’t mean they’re part of some overarching scheme to oppress people. Laws in democracies are designed to balance individual rights and public safety, not to impose control. Equating that with totalitarian control is either an exaggeration or a complete misunderstanding of how democratic governance works.

Your constant retreat into the chaos versus cosmos debate avoids the concrete issues we’re discussing. Whether you believe in divine justice or not is irrelevant here. We live in societies made up of other people, and we need laws to coexist peacefully. Laws aren’t here to replace divine justice; they’re tools to manage practical realities. This conversation isn’t about grand metaphysical truths, it’s about how to function on a practical level.

Society isn’t an abstract concept. People need healthcare, roads, protection from harm, and basic rights. The social contract isn’t some philosophical trick; it’s a necessary framework that allows people with different beliefs to coexist and function without descending into chaos or constant conflict. The abstract ideals you keep chasing don’t change the fact that people need practical governance.

We can keep spinning in philosophical circles, but my interest is in dealing with the real-world issues we all face - not chasing ideas that don’t apply to actual governance.

Dear John,

Why look for practical governance when you already have it and held it firmly for centuries?

In practical terms, the wolves will keep eating the lambs, never vice-versa.
While they may not enjoy the intellectual justification that "the lamb downstream was polluting my drinking water, but not any more", nothing stops them from still enjoying the warm taste of fresh lamb-flesh.

I rather you be an honest dictator than pretend to rule democratically in a "shared society".

I rather you govern by the sheer might of your arms, rather than send me to the polls to select between you and your twin, along with all the useful idiots who vote only to avoid a fine, thus assuring that one face of you will always be elected to make you look nice.

If philosophy and philosophers stand in the way of your social and material goals, then I rather you shoot the philosophers, including myself, than pretend to have a sound philosophical foundation to justify your violence.

As per this specific discussion, one more law is being proposed, one among thousands already in place.
In practical terms, neither myself nor Ttbn nor anyone else would be able to prevent it - it will soon be legislated regardless of what this forum says, you don't need me for having the satisfaction of seeing the governor-general signing it.

The question remains, will you or will you not have the decency to admit that this law will not serve everyone, because "everyone" includes myself.

«Society isn’t an abstract concept.»

It is a concept nevertheless, so vague a concept that anyone can twist it to serve their own purpose.

«People need healthcare, roads, protection from harm, and basic rights.»

Whatever people need, which is not for you to decide, they can take care of themselves, and would indeed been able to do so had the state not been standing in their way.

«The social contract isn’t some philosophical trick»

Like the tooth-fairy, both simply do not exist.

«...the fact that people need practical governance.»

The fact that YOU want them practically governed.

Yuyutsu,

It’s becoming abundantly clear to me that you are unwilling or unable to grasp nuance, and are only capable of thinking in black and white.

//Why look for practical governance when you already have it and held it firmly for centuries?//

Because we live in a changing world and it needs to continuously adapt to that.

//In practical terms, the wolves will keep eating the lambs, never vice-versa.//

If we truly lived in a society where "wolves" always preyed on "lambs," laws wouldn't exist to protect individuals from harm. You enjoy the protection provided by the rule of law, yet reject the system that upholds it.

//I rather you be an honest dictator than pretend to rule democratically in a 'shared society.’//

This is self-contradictory since you enjoy the freedom to criticise governance, something that wouldn't exist in a dictatorship.

//If philosophy and philosophers stand in the way of your social and material goals…//

They don’t. Your comment here uses hyperbole to sidestep my point.

//In practical terms, neither myself ... nor anyone else would be able to prevent it…//

This argument is both fatalistic and hypocritical. You claim that you have no say, yet you are actively participating in a public forum, voicing your opinion in an attempt to influence others.

//…will you or will you not have the decency to admit that this law will not serve everyone…//

It will serve everyone to some degree, whether it be directly or indirectly. You included. I’m able to say that with my decency intact.

//Whatever people need, which is not for you to decide, they can take care of themselves...//

I didn’t say it was for me to decide. But, no, we wouldn’t have those things without the state. They require large-scale organisation.

//Like the tooth-fairy, both simply do not exist.//

The social contract exists through the very laws, protections, and systems you use daily. You live as though the social contract exists because it does. You rely on it every day.

//The fact that YOU want them practically governed.//

It has nothing to do with what I want.

Yuyutsu,

Save yourself the effort. I’ve got it…

Dear John,

I’m not surprised by your insistence on nuance, but what you call "nuance," I call unnecessary complication. Sometimes, what appears to be black and white is precisely that.

«Because we live in a changing world and it needs to continuously adapt to that.»

Adaptation or survival? You cloak necessity in the language of choice. A system that requires constant adaptation is inherently fragile. Is that truly governance, or is it just survival under a different name?

«If we truly lived in a society where "wolves" always preyed on "lambs," laws wouldn't exist to protect individuals from harm. You enjoy the protection provided by the rule of law, yet reject the system that upholds it.»

And yet, despite these laws, the "wolves" still prey. The laws do not stop them; they only provide a facade of security, a way to manage the chaos rather than solve it. I do not reject protection, I reject the illusion of it. If laws were perfect, there would be no need for wolves, but they exist because the system allows it, and benefits from it.

«This is self-contradictory since you enjoy the freedom to criticise governance, something that wouldn't exist in a dictatorship.»

A dictatorship that does not lie about what it is may be preferable to a democracy that pretends to listen while enforcing its own agenda regardless. The freedom to speak is a poor consolation when speaking changes nothing. You assume I value this freedom, but perhaps its value is inflated when it leads nowhere.

«They don’t. Your comment here uses hyperbole to sidestep my point.»

Philosophers once stood as the conscience of society, questioning its direction. Today, they are trampled by those like you who value material progress over reflection. In practical terms, they have already been sidelined. You speak as though their words still hold sway - they do not.

[Continued…]

[...Continued]

«You claim that you have no say, yet you are actively participating in a public forum, voicing your opinion in an attempt to influence others.»

If I truly had any influence, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. My participation here is more a reflection of my principles than any belief in the efficacy of this platform. I speak because I must, not because I expect change. And therein lies the fatalism you point out - it is a recognition, not a surrender.

«It will serve everyone to some degree, whether it be directly or indirectly. You included.»

"Serve" is a vague word. It may "serve" everyone, but it will not serve them equally or fairly. Some will benefit, some will lose. You can maintain your decency, but that does not change the fact that the law itself lacks it.

«I didn’t say it was for me to decide. But, no, we wouldn’t have those things without the state. They require large-scale organisation.»

The state as the grand architect! Yet history shows that people managed without the overreach of a state. Villages and small communities survived for centuries, far from the shadow of governments, organising their affairs without bureaucracy. You mistake large-scale control for the only method of organisation.

«The social contract exists through the very laws, protections, and systems you use daily. You live as though the social contract exists because it does.»

Does the lamb rely on the shepherd who will inevitably slaughter it when convenient? The social contract is nothing more than a series of compromises to which the weak must agree to survive. And those compromises are always dictated by the powerful. I acknowledge the contract's existence only in so far as I acknowledge gravity, not as something just or ideal.

«It has nothing to do with what I want.»

Perhaps not, but your defence of this system shows that you are comfortable with its flaws, its contradictions. You claim objectivity, but in truth, this system serves your goals well enough that you are content with it.