Yuyutsu,

I suspect the misunderstanding stems more from the philosophical gap between our perspectives than any failure on your part.

//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.//

I never claimed adaptation was something governments struggle to acquire. It is something they must continually do to address new challenges. Your view that governments have "full control" and that I support such a regime oversimplifies how governance functions. It’s not about control.

//Adaptation of legislation to present conditions had little to do with anything we discussed earlier.//

Adaptation is relevant to governance because the world is constantly evolving and you had made it sound like the job has been completed, requiring no further work. You dismiss this by assuming governance is static and that decisions are made from a position of control.

//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.//

So how do we govern a complex, interconnected world without some form of enforced order then? It's one thing to believe in an ideal, but the reality is that large societies cannot function on moral or philosophical ideals alone.

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

Your analogy implies that governance is a mere illusion of control, but laws and governance do shape society in tangible ways. Individuals may not always directly drive the outcomes, but they do influence them through voting, public discourse, and activism.

//Governance is complex indeed, more than humans can handle well.//

Yes, but that’s not a reason to abandon it. The challenges societies face are also complex and cannot be resolved through faith in a cosmic order alone.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

The imperfections of governance reflect the imperfections of humanity, but rejecting governance entirely would lead to anarchy and exploitation.

The small communities of like-minded people that you suggest would naturally start communicating and sharing ideas to the point where they'd slowly intermingle and sometimes even merge over generations. History shows this. As communities interact, their differences can soften, and their shared interests could bring them together. Governance is an inevitability that naturally emerges out of this; it’s not just a power grab by a greedy few.

This, I think, goes to the heart of your misunderstanding.

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

Justice doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor is it guaranteed by faith alone. It needs to be actively pursued, and that pursuit requires governance, laws, and enforcement. You may view this as a belief in chaos, but it is more accurately a recognition that without structures to protect rights and maintain order, chaos fills the void.

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

This presumes a level of moral perfection that humanity has not demonstrated. If divine laws are so effective, why then is human history filled with violence, injustice, and harm? Even if we accept the premise of a cosmic order, human beings clearly need systems to manage their interactions and prevent harm where possible. Laws and governance exist precisely because we cannot rely on perfect moral behaviour.

//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?//

There is nothing to admit. They’re also not “my” laws. Governance will never satisfy everyone, but that doesn’t mean laws are inherently unjust. In a society, individual desires and needs must be balanced against the collective good.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

No system is flawless, but dismissing the whole structure because some people find it painful ignores the broader benefits of governance - such as the prevention of harm and the protection of basic rights. It’s not about apologising for the system but improving it through participation and reform.

//Don't you trust people's choices, or does the faith in chaos include the belief that humans are ultimately evil in nature?//

I don’t believe humans are evil by nature, but history shows that unchecked freedom leads to exploitation. Trusting people’s choices is vital, but without governance to set boundaries and provide accountability, those choices could lead to harm. It's not a lack of trust but a recognition of the necessity of systems to protect everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

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

That’s a mischaracterisation. I’m not claiming superior knowledge. Dissent and critique are important, and your suffering is valid, but personal dissatisfaction doesn’t automatically invalidate the system’s purpose. Governance isn’t about forcing compliance. The fact that you’re free to express your disagreement is itself a testament to the system’s ability to accommodate diverse voices, even those critical of it.

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

That’s precisely why democratic processes exist - to allow people to participate in the determination. You argue that no true democracy exists, but these (flawed) processes still represent an attempt to balance individual freedoms with collective responsibility.

If passed, the censorship Bill would allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to issue fines of up to $3,130,000 or 2% of annual turnover (whichever is greater) for social media platforms and, up to $626,000 for individuals

ttbn,

Yes, and who would the individuals be who are captured by the bill? You left that bit out.

I’ll give you a hint: it’s not the average Joe on Facebook sharing a conspiracy post about vaccines or climate change.

--

Yuyustu,

I’ve been thinking about the idea of small communities comprising like-minded people you mentioned, and thought about those that already exist.

One of the big issues these communities faced - and still face - is sexual abuse. Unsurprisingly, women are overwhelmingly the victims here.

Even in those communities that still exist, in countries with a centralised government - such as Amish and Hare Krishna communities - sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape are more commonplace than they are in the general community.

I suspect those who are more vulnerable in such communities wouldn’t share your ideals. You may end up with isolated agrarian communities consisting almost entirely of men.

Dear John,

Even after my long post explaining that I said nothing about adaptation (of laws), neither for nor against it, that your mention of adaptation in the first place was unnecessarily deviating from our discussion and that it was merely accidental due to your complete misunderstanding of something else that I wrote earlier, you still dedicated two new paragraphs in defence of adaptation. If that's not a reason to despair of my ability to get my communications across, then I don't know what is.

It seems that responding line-for-line as I did so far is not working, that it causes the overall context to be forgotten, thus I will try a different approach and briefly sum up our discussion so far as I see it:

The wish to have and govern a complex, interconnected world, is yours in the first place, not mine, hence the onus is on you to either:
1) find a way to do it without violence; or
2) give up that idea, at least until you find a way; or
3) admit that you don't mind being violent, at least to some degree, in order to achieve your desired goals.

If you care to ask me, then I can advise you that violence is not going to end well, yet the choice is yours, you do not need to heed my advice.

Further, you do not even need my practical support to achieve your goal because power and democratic-majority seem to be on your side whether I like it or not, both to legislate (and enforce that legislation) to begin with, then to adapt your legislation to present conditions. I may not morally approve of your choices, but I certainly am powerless to physically stand in your way.

[continued...]