(Cont’d)

That you engage in systems of governance and debate while claiming they don’t work is a paradox you’re unwilling to confront.

//In a God-given cosmos, violence can never end well.//
Belief in a divine cosmic order doesn’t negate the necessity of laws in the material world. Even if we accept your premise that violence leads to destruction, that doesn’t provide a framework for preventing harm or ensuring social order.

//You have the intelligence to imply that forcing laws that are meant for a chaotic world on me against my will, is likely to at least hurt my feelings; Yet where is your decency to admit it?//

There’s nothing to admit. If laws were about individual preference, we’d have anarchy. Governance isn’t about whether you personally feel hurt by laws - it’s about creating a system that balances the needs and rights of everyone. Your personal discomfort is not the measure of the law’s validity.

//…but why then not allow people to decide for themselves what things they are to have and what other things they are happy to sacrifice in order to live in a smaller society of relatively like-minded people?//

This sounds nice in theory, but in practice, societies are interconnected. What happens in one community can affect another. The idea of smaller, isolated societies is impractical in a world where resources and communications cross borders.

//While there exists some complex dynamic relationship between us, that does not amount to a contract.//

The social contract isn’t just a theoretical construct; it’s the basis for the laws, protections, and systems we all rely on. You benefit from the system every day, whether you acknowledge it or not.

//Could you prove that by allowing people to freely choose their own society, big or small as they wish?//

People do choose their societies - through democratic processes. What you’re asking for is absolute autonomy, which simply isn’t feasible in a complex, interconnected world. The real challenge is navigating the balance between individual freedoms and societal responsibility, something you continually refuse to engage with.

Dear John,

Your last posts showed me again what a poor communicator I am.

When others do not understand me here, which I can tell because they continue to argue a point even after I told them that I agree with them (yes, this often happens here, especially with a particular person I will not mention by name), I may conclude that "too bad, they just don't have the capacity to understand".

But when that happens even with someone as intelligent as yourself, then I must conclude that the fault is mine.

I still intend to respond in full to your last double-post, but since I have no time right now to go back, analyse and trace back each and every response of yours, let me limit myself for now and concentrate on just one:

«The need for continuous adaptation isn’t about acquiring something new. The fact that we’ve managed to adapt doesn’t mean we can stop now. Your fatalistic approach assumes that nothing more can be done.»

Thus you were arguing in support of adaptation even after I tried to tell you (obviously unsuccessfully) that adaptation was not the issue. In my own words:

{Your full control which you (or the regime you support) firmly held for centuries, already includes the ability to adapt [should you wish to]. That is not anything new that you still struggle to acquire or that I am capable of stopping.}

Somehow I was trying to convey to you that adaptation of legislation to present conditions had little to do with anything we discussed earlier, that this whole mention of adaptation was taking us on an unnecessary new tangent.

This was in reply to you earlier claiming:

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

Which was in reply to me saying:

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

[continued...]

[...continued]

What I was trying [unsuccessfully] to convey to you was that if, as you said in your preceding post, you were only interested in the practical aspects of governance rather than in having some philosophical backing for your actions, then you can do whatever you like already, then my contrary views do not stand in your way anyway (because government does not and will not listen to me anyway).

You see, I mentioned nothing about adaptation, neither positively nor negatively, so when you introduced it, I was only trying to tell you, "please stay on the subject"... but I failed. :-(

Now since you did introduce adaptation, let me state again that the issue I have is with legislation in general, with this whole concept, not particularly with new laws.

To demonstrate my position, suppose I was somehow magically transported into parliament as a member and you (another parliamentarian) wanted to pass a new law, such as the law which started this thread of discussion, then we could possibly be able to make a bargain deal: I would help you to pass this new bill, provided you agreed in return to repeal two old ones!

I will endeavour to respond to the rest of your posts either today or tomorrow, but obviously not in such great detail.

Misinfo and disinfo
Well I guess were going to have to ban all the corporate media then.
I haven't read one article today the told the unbiased truth.

Dear John,

«Your insistence on dismissing governance as inherently violent»

Non-violent governance is possible, and I wouldn't mind it at all, but statistically the more people are involved, the smaller probability it can happen.

Also possible is governance that limits its violence to essential self-defence: I could elabourate if you like.

«your rejection of the rule of law as an illusion»

Illusive just like a father placing their toddler's hand on the car's wheel to make them believe they drive the car.

«you refuse to acknowledge the complexity and necessity of governance in societies.»

Uh-Oh, governance is complex indeed, more than humans can handle well.

«The existence of laws that protect individual rights is necessary for justice...»

You are saying so because you believe in chaos where justice doesn't otherwise already exist.

«The rule of law does provide protection.»

Re the father placing their toddler's hand on the wheel: The toddler does not drive, governments do not protect.

«It’s not perfect, but without it, we'd have total chaos.»

There, you said it yourself, that is your faith.

«Philosophical musings on the illusory nature of protection do nothing to address the real threats people face daily.»

I agree. Only abstention from harming others can address these threats.
(and states are not known to abstain from harming others)

«...It’s the very existence of those laws you berate that ensures your ability to speak out without fear of persecution.»

You say that because you do not share my faith, nor believe that I can have any other protector.

«That you engage in systems of governance and debate while claiming they don’t work is a paradox you’re unwilling to confront.»

Some unfortunate people engage with cancer even while they never invited it. What other choice do they have?

«Belief in a divine cosmic order doesn’t negate the necessity of laws in the material world. Even if we accept your premise that violence leads to destruction, that doesn’t provide a framework for preventing harm»

Divine cosmic order already contains the necessary laws that ensure that no harm befall anyone unless they harmed others first.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«or ensuring social order»

Within a society I never got to freely choose? No thanks!

«There’s nothing to admit...»

So you wouldn't even admit, let alone apologise, that your laws bring pain to other people, including those who were never even asked whether they wish to participate in your society?

«societies are interconnected...»

And may remain interconnected if so they choose.
Don't you trust people's choices, or does the faith in chaos includes the belief that humans are ultimately evil in nature?

«The idea of smaller, isolated societies is impractical in a world where resources and communications cross borders.»

Perhaps so, "impractical" in the sense of not serving your personal aspirations.

«The social contract isn’t just a theoretical construct;»

It isn't anything, certainly not a contract.

«it’s the basis for the laws, protections, and systems we all rely on.»

Please speak for yourself: "we" includes myself too.

«You benefit from the system every day, whether you acknowledge it or not.»

In other words, "Shut up, I know better than you".

So long as I can still speak, so long as I am not choked, I will say it again: I DO NOT benefit from the system, I suffer from it.

«People do choose their societies - through democratic processes.»

First, there is no true democracy anywhere.
Second, even if there were democracies, this is no consolation for minorities - even the purest democracy does not allow you to select in advance who be the people whose majority is to determine the laws.

«What you’re asking for is absolute autonomy, which simply isn’t feasible in a complex, interconnected world.»

Suppose so, that's an interesting but deep and wide topic in itself - is this your excuse to refuse people even a relative autonomy?

«The real challenge is navigating the balance between individual freedoms and societal responsibility»

And who is to determine what are those societal responsibilities (if any)? Not the people who freely chose to belong in that society?

And responsible to whom? Not for the same people? to that whole "complex, interconnected world" as perhaps you wish?