pragmatic psychoanalysis of government

[rootseeker]

Do you mean "government" or "the government"? Perhaps a government that actually had the full consent of the governed as a signed written social contract, with provisions of common contracts like a cancellation process, would not result in these problems. How can an organization of good originate from a foundation of evil?

The more important an agreement is, the more it needs to be signed and written on paper.

But the one and ONLY True 'governance' that can and DOES work NEVER needs/needed ANY piece of paper to be signed. In fact NO ACTUAL 'agreement' HAD TO be sought NOR reached, for ANY one to 'sign' NOR to 'agree with'.

Yet there is no genuine agreement of social contract for any modern government. The process is that they operate as owners of humans within specific geographic coordinates.

An actually fair concept of Democracy would begin by everyone representing them self, then voluntarily with full consent, signing up for a government organization. Since about 4 in 5 people want such an organization type, that would clearly happen if governments were suddenly incapable of achieving the intimidation required for authoritarian government styles of today.

But 'governments', themselves, are NOT even needed. As it is 'self-governance' that ONLY works, SUCCESSFULLY.

Self-government as you seem to describe it is something I consider a human impossibility from a technical standpoint. I'm not worried about governing myself, I'm worried about governing the people who don't follow the non-aggression principle (which I'll state as physical harm is only for stopping real physical harm), who try to harm people I care about. This is where government becomes a naturally demanded collective of people. The fact is humans fight each other, and any intervention by multiple people designed to resolve the issue can be considered as a government. Even just one family on Earth would lead to conflict that would involve force by multiple people involved. Government at its most broad meaning is just human control. Self-government encourages other-government because other people exist and can act without regard for the non-aggression principle.

I don't think of a written social contract as being required, I think of it as being the civilized approach to government. I think of human government as natural guarantee of the nature of humanity. The best way to protect myself from others who do wrong is not individually, it is collectively by joining with other like-minded people. And, the more important the agreement is with the collective, the more important it is to be in writing.

[Age]

Do you mean "government" or "the government"? Perhaps a government that actually had the full consent of the governed as a signed written social contract, with provisions of common contracts like a cancellation process, would not result in these problems. How can an organization of good originate from a foundation of evil?

The more important an agreement is, the more it needs to be signed and written on paper.

But the one and ONLY True 'governance' that can and DOES work NEVER needs/needed ANY piece of paper to be signed. In fact NO ACTUAL 'agreement' HAD TO be sought NOR reached, for ANY one to 'sign' NOR to 'agree with'.

Yet there is no genuine agreement of social contract for any modern government. The process is that they operate as owners of humans within specific geographic coordinates.

An actually fair concept of Democracy would begin by everyone representing them self, then voluntarily with full consent, signing up for a government organization. Since about 4 in 5 people want such an organization type, that would clearly happen if governments were suddenly incapable of achieving the intimidation required for authoritarian government styles of today.

But 'governments', themselves, are NOT even needed. As it is 'self-governance' that ONLY works, SUCCESSFULLY.

Self-government as you seem to describe it is something I consider a human impossibility from a technical standpoint.

Okay, but I am NOT sure HOW ONLY 'thought, thinking, or knowing' WITHIN a 'human body' has to do with ANY 'technical standpoint'.

Also, have what 'you', human beings, 'considered to be a human impossibility' ALWAYS been 'the case'?

In fact if 'we' were to LOOK and DELVE INTO EVERY human built and constructed 'thing' 'it' WAS ONCE 'considered a human impossibility'.

I'm not worried about governing myself, I'm worried about governing the people who don't follow the non-aggression principle (which I'll state as physical harm is only for stopping real physical harm), who try to harm people I care about.

1. WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care about' SOME people?

2. WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care' here about 'physical harm'. Some of the WORST 'harm AND damage' comes from mental, emotional, sexual, and spiritual 'abuse'. Psychological abuse can be FAR MORE harmful and damaging then just 'physical harm'.

This is where government becomes a naturally demanded collective of people.

So, what 'you' are here essentially saying is, 'you', adult people, collectively demand, so-called 'naturally, that some OTHER 'thing' 'govern' "yourselves".

Is it ONLY 'me' who SEES the ABSOLUTELY STUPIDITY and ABSURDITY of such a 'thing' as 'this'?

Now, I TOTALLY AGREE that 'a new born human babies', and 'young children', would, NATURALLY expect and/or demand that some OTHER 'thing' LOOKS AFTER, CARES FOR, and GUIDES 'them'. BUT, that A 'matured human being' would expect or demand 'such a thing' I find TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. And that 'you', people, supposedly do 'this' COLLECTIVELY is even MORE IRRESPONSIBLE and that some of 'you' even think or BELIEVE that 'this' IS 'natural' is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

NO 'child' likes to be TOLD 'what to do', let alone ANY 'adult' that I KNOW OF. Unless, OF COURSE, they HAVE BEEN 'abused' 'too much' and now HAVE some sort of 'mental issue'.

The fact is humans fight each other, and any intervention by multiple people designed to resolve the issue can be considered as a government.

Even if you LET 'young children' to fight, bicker, or quarrel WITH "each other" 'they' STILL KNOW that 'this' IS Wrong, and WILL even ASK for some sort of 'governance', FROM the one's who are MEANT TO BE the responsible ones anyway.

But 'these' ARE 'young children'. Surely, 'this' SEEKING 'governance' or even 'guidance' FROM "others" would HAVE DISSIPATED COMPLETELY FROM one who has Truly 'grown up' and 'matured'? Yet you are SAYING that 'you', as an adult human being, and "others" STILL SEEK OUT 'governance' and/or 'guidance' FROM "others", right?

Even just one family on Earth would lead to conflict that would involve force by multiple people involved.

REALLY?

To 'you' it IS a COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY FOR 'you' to just 'get along' WITH "others"?

Also, ONCE 'you', human beings, EVOLVE ENOUGH to GAIN 'understanding', itself, that is; TO KNOW thy 'Self', FULLY and EXACTLY, then UNDERSTANDING WHY absolutely EVERY 'thing' 'you', human beings, think and DO also BECOMES KNOWN, from which 'forgiveness' FOR ALL just NATURALLY FOLLOWS and FLOWS.

See, it was ONLY WITH the FULLY UNDERSTANDING, itself, OF WHY people DO, what they DO, COULD and DOES 'forgiveness', itself, NATURALLY OCCUR. AND, OBVIOUSLY WITH FORGIVENESS and UNDERSTANDING there IS NO 'conflict' AT ALL.

It is ONLY FROM NOT UNDERSTANDING or FROM A MISUNDERSTANDING that 'conflict' BEGINS, and OCCURS.

Government at its most broad meaning is just human control.

And, as I SAID earlier, 'self-governance' is the ONLY 'governance' that ACTUALLY, REALLY, WORKS.

Self-government encourages other-government because other people exist and can act without regard for the non-aggression principle.

Look, if 'this' is what you want to BELIEVE is true, then by all means CONTINUE TO DO SO. I am CERTAINLY NOT even going to 'try to' STOP 'you'.

I don't think of a written social contract as being required, I think of it as being the civilized approach to government.

BUT 'you', human beings, were FAR MORE so-called 'civilized' BEFORE 'you' evolved to create paper, ink, and 'written signatures'.

I think of human government as natural guarantee of the nature of humanity.

If 'we' were to LOOK AROUND at 'the earth', in the days when this is being written, then is 'human government' REALLY 'working' FOR 'you'?

And, what IS the 'nature of humanity' ANYWAY?

Also, 'human government' can ALSO INCLUDE 'self-government'. BUT, that kind of 'self-governance' has NOT WORKED SO FAR. and this is just BECAUSE 'you', human beings, are YET to COME-TO-KNOW thy Self. That is; WHO 'I' AM, EXACTLY, AS WELL.

ONCE 'this' BECOMES KNOWN BY 'you', people' ALSO, then the 'Self-governing' COMES-INTO-PLAY, and COMES-TO-WORK, properly AND efficiently I will add.

The best way to protect myself from others who do wrong is not individually, it is collectively by joining with other like-minded people.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'you', human beings, HAVE TO 'protect' "yourselves" AGAINST "yourselves". And, 'you' DO 'this' by forming 'GROUPS' and "arming yourselves", and AGAINST "yourselves". The ABSURDITY and STUPIDITY OF speaks FOR itself. And, by the way, is a Truly HILARIOUS 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE FROM 'our perspective', anyway. Although it would, OBVIOUSLY, be a Truly FRIGHTENING and SCARY WAY TO live, FROM 'your perspective'.

And, the more important the agreement is with the collective, the more important it is to be in writing.

Okay, OBVIOUSLY 'you' have ALSO come here to just EXPRESS 'your' VIEWS, ONLY, which 'you' BELIEVE are the BEST and RIGHT ones, and which ARE the ones 'you' BELIEVE EVERY one "else" should HAVE and HOLD, AS WELL.

[rootseeker]

But the one and ONLY True 'governance' that can and DOES work NEVER needs/needed ANY piece of paper to be signed. In fact NO ACTUAL 'agreement' HAD TO be sought NOR reached, for ANY one to 'sign' NOR to 'agree with'.

But 'governments', themselves, are NOT even needed. As it is 'self-governance' that ONLY works, SUCCESSFULLY.

Self-government as you seem to describe it is something I consider a human impossibility from a technical standpoint.

Okay, but I am NOT sure HOW ONLY 'thought, thinking, or knowing' WITHIN a 'human body' has to do with ANY 'technical standpoint'.

Also, have what 'you', human beings, 'considered to be a human impossibility' ALWAYS been 'the case'?

In fact if 'we' were to LOOK and DELVE INTO EVERY human built and constructed 'thing' 'it' WAS ONCE 'considered a human impossibility'.

Self-government can work for a population of people who purely ascribe to such self-rule as the carbon rule of "live and let live". However, self-government seems to fail when for example a thief who is stronger than you decides they want the food in your garden more than you want the food in your garden, and doesn't ascribe any property rights of any kind aside from keeping their own things by force of arm. I'll guess that you support the idea of property rights, but if not imagine your own scenario by which someone in the population actually gets wrongfully violent on an ongoing basis.

We live in a world where humans are born without moral values and are self-centered. Some of those humans fail to learn that such things as lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are supposed to be suppressed by the time they are physically stronger than most people. There are quite severe consequences if that is enabled to continue without a physical defense against it. And if you do defend against it, then forming a group with other people to defend against it offers strength in numbers.

I'm not worried about governing myself, I'm worried about governing the people who don't follow the non-aggression principle (which I'll state as physical harm is only for stopping real physical harm), who try to harm people I care about.

1. WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care about' SOME people?

2. WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care' here about 'physical harm'. Some of the WORST 'harm AND damage' comes from mental, emotional, sexual, and spiritual 'abuse'. Psychological abuse can be FAR MORE harmful and damaging then just 'physical harm'.

"people I care about" could easily refer to everyone, so I don't think I signaled any lack of care. I didn't limit my care there only in prevention of physical harm, I merely said that was a cause for worry. Just because I have worry about physical harm doesn't mean I have no concerns for non-physical harm. I do have concerns for people who cause psychological harm but do not consider physical force to be the best way of stopping that.

This is where government becomes a naturally demanded collective of people.

So, what 'you' are here essentially saying is, 'you', adult people, collectively demand, so-called 'naturally, that some OTHER 'thing' 'govern' "yourselves".

Is it ONLY 'me' who SEES the ABSOLUTELY STUPIDITY and ABSURDITY of such a 'thing' as 'this'?

The general category for your belief would be pacifism or anarchism, and that is rare. Then you'd be in the subset of anarchist or pacifist that sees even minimalist government libertarianism as both absolute stupidity and absurd. If forced to guess, I'd say there are 300,000 people on Earth who share your sentiments, but perhaps you're the only one on this forum expressing this.

Now, I TOTALLY AGREE that 'a new born human babies', and 'young children', would, NATURALLY expect and/or demand that some OTHER 'thing' LOOKS AFTER, CARES FOR, and GUIDES 'them'. BUT, that A 'matured human being' would expect or demand 'such a thing' I find TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. And that 'you', people, supposedly do 'this' COLLECTIVELY is even MORE IRRESPONSIBLE and that some of 'you' even think or BELIEVE that 'this' IS 'natural' is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

NO 'child' likes to be TOLD 'what to do', let alone ANY 'adult' that I KNOW OF. Unless, OF COURSE, they HAVE BEEN 'abused' 'too much' and now HAVE some sort of 'mental issue'.

The fact is humans fight each other, and any intervention by multiple people designed to resolve the issue can be considered as a government.

Even if you LET 'young children' to fight, bicker, or quarrel WITH "each other" 'they' STILL KNOW that 'this' IS Wrong, and WILL even ASK for some sort of 'governance', FROM the one's who are MEANT TO BE the responsible ones anyway.

But 'these' ARE 'young children'. Surely, 'this' SEEKING 'governance' or even 'guidance' FROM "others" would HAVE DISSIPATED COMPLETELY FROM one who has Truly 'grown up' and 'matured'? Yet you are SAYING that 'you', as an adult human being, and "others" STILL SEEK OUT 'governance' and/or 'guidance' FROM "others", right?

There are people who seek to do evil. Sometimes the person doing evil is stronger than a weaker person and bullies them. The weaker person may want to get help with their issue by getting stronger people who help them. That is the starting point of a government collective. It is wrong for the stronger person to bully the weaker person, but it is not wrong for the weaker person to get help from stronger people to stop the evil person from doing evil.

When I'm wronged as and adult by another adult, and the person who I'm wronged is stronger than I am, then I seek out partners to overcome the strength of my opponent to prevent the wrong from continuing. Is a weaker person supposed to refrain from forming a team?

Even just one family on Earth would lead to conflict that would involve force by multiple people involved.

REALLY?

To 'you' it IS a COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY FOR 'you' to just 'get along' WITH "others"?

It seems a complete and absolute impossibility for me to get along with people who refuse to contain their urges to try to physically assault me. Being tolerant of abuse that I am unable to stop by myself is not what I consider to be getting along. Bullies target people who are weaker than them self. The same people who bully by the power of the state simply change their scale of bullying if their government job gets eliminated.

Also, ONCE 'you', human beings, EVOLVE ENOUGH to GAIN 'understanding', itself, that is; TO KNOW thy 'Self', FULLY and EXACTLY, then UNDERSTANDING WHY absolutely EVERY 'thing' 'you', human beings, think and DO also BECOMES KNOWN, from which 'forgiveness' FOR ALL just NATURALLY FOLLOWS and FLOWS.

See, it was ONLY WITH the FULLY UNDERSTANDING, itself, OF WHY people DO, what they DO, COULD and DOES 'forgiveness', itself, NATURALLY OCCUR. AND, OBVIOUSLY WITH FORGIVENESS and UNDERSTANDING there IS NO 'conflict' AT ALL.

It is ONLY FROM NOT UNDERSTANDING or FROM A MISUNDERSTANDING that 'conflict' BEGINS, and OCCURS.

Government at its most broad meaning is just human control.

And, as I SAID earlier, 'self-governance' is the ONLY 'governance' that ACTUALLY, REALLY, WORKS.

Self-government encourages other-government because other people exist and can act without regard for the non-aggression principle.

Look, if 'this' is what you want to BELIEVE is true, then by all means CONTINUE TO DO SO. I am CERTAINLY NOT even going to 'try to' STOP 'you'.

I don't think of a written social contract as being required, I think of it as being the civilized approach to government.

BUT 'you', human beings, were FAR MORE so-called 'civilized' BEFORE 'you' evolved to create paper, ink, and 'written signatures'.

I think of human government as natural guarantee of the nature of humanity.

If 'we' were to LOOK AROUND at 'the earth', in the days when this is being written, then is 'human government' REALLY 'working' FOR 'you'?

And, what IS the 'nature of humanity' ANYWAY?

Also, 'human government' can ALSO INCLUDE 'self-government'. BUT, that kind of 'self-governance' has NOT WORKED SO FAR. and this is just BECAUSE 'you', human beings, are YET to COME-TO-KNOW thy Self. That is; WHO 'I' AM, EXACTLY, AS WELL.

ONCE 'this' BECOMES KNOWN BY 'you', people' ALSO, then the 'Self-governing' COMES-INTO-PLAY, and COMES-TO-WORK, properly AND efficiently I will add.

The best way to protect myself from others who do wrong is not individually, it is collectively by joining with other like-minded people.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'you', human beings, HAVE TO 'protect' "yourselves" AGAINST "yourselves". And, 'you' DO 'this' by forming 'GROUPS' and "arming yourselves", and AGAINST "yourselves". The ABSURDITY and STUPIDITY OF speaks FOR itself. And, by the way, is a Truly HILARIOUS 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE FROM 'our perspective', anyway. Although it would, OBVIOUSLY, be a Truly FRIGHTENING and SCARY WAY TO live, FROM 'your perspective'.

And, the more important the agreement is with the collective, the more important it is to be in writing.

Okay, OBVIOUSLY 'you' have ALSO come here to just EXPRESS 'your' VIEWS, ONLY, which 'you' BELIEVE are the BEST and RIGHT ones, and which ARE the ones 'you' BELIEVE EVERY one "else" should HAVE and HOLD, AS WELL.

I have insufficient information about what happened before recorded history regarding people behaving without civility. It seems like the earliest recorded history seems filled with plenty of violence of both the state and domestically among family members. It seems furthermore only after recorded philosophy did humans start to change their views about the injustice of formerly common practices such as physically hitting family members to gain their submission, and at a wider scale using wars to gain slaves and material wealth.

I believe people who highly value a freedom-loving civil society should have a similar belief system as I do. Given an ordered set of virtues and values, there is an ordered set of beliefs and rules that help one to achieve those virtues and values. Specific world views lead to a set of preferred behaviors, customs, and ideas that are the best and right ones which favor that specific system of values. If another person has an insufficiently close order of virtues and values, then the only thing I want them to believe is we shouldn't be anywhere near each other and require a distance because we cannot get along. I believe certain personality types are not compatible with other certain personality types. I can love them and forgive them despite their evils or moral differences, but I cannot live with them peacefully. There is room for a certain fraction of people to be self-governing as pacifists in a freedom-loving civil society, but after a large enough fraction of such people are together they would probably be pillaged by savages that are not opposed to forming collectives.

[LuckyR]

Government is sociopathic, inefficient, psychotic, wasteful, borderline, filthy, dyslexic, ignorant, schizophrenic, and violent... and you still treat it as legitimate?!

If it were a person you'd recommend the death penalty.

Uummm... a government's decisions and actions (since they're groups of people) are, by definition those of persons.

As to your first paragraph, I'm interested on your opinions of corporations.

[Age]

Self-government as you seem to describe it is something I consider a human impossibility from a technical standpoint.

Okay, but I am NOT sure HOW ONLY 'thought, thinking, or knowing' WITHIN a 'human body' has to do with ANY 'technical standpoint'.

Also, have what 'you', human beings, 'considered to be a human impossibility' ALWAYS been 'the case'?

In fact if 'we' were to LOOK and DELVE INTO EVERY human built and constructed 'thing' 'it' WAS ONCE 'considered a human impossibility'.

Self-government can work for a population of people who purely ascribe to such self-rule as the carbon rule of "live and let live".

But 'this' is obviously NOT correct, and in fact VERY False and UNTRUE.

However, self-government seems to fail when for example a thief who is stronger than you decides they want the food in your garden more than you want the food in your garden, and doesn't ascribe any property rights of any kind aside from keeping their own things by force of arm.

you OBVIOUSLY have NOT YET put much thought into what I have SAID and WRITTEN here.

I'll guess that you support the idea of property rights, but if not imagine your own scenario by which someone in the population actually gets wrongfully violent on an ongoing basis.

you can GUESS and ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing' that you like. But doing so will NEVER mean that you are right NOR even close to being right.

ONLY through CLARIFICATION can and will you GAIN and OBTAIN ACTUAL UNDERSTANDING, and CLARITY.

We live in a world where humans are born without moral values and are self-centered.

'This' WAS A VERY TYPICAL view of one who BELIEVED that God exists, has and/or holds a "christian" viewpoint, BACK in the 'OLDEN' days when this was being written.

Some of those humans fail to learn that such things as lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are supposed to be suppressed by the time they are physically stronger than most people.

Have 'you', "yourself", "rootseeker", LEARNED 'this'?

If yes, then WHY are 'you' STILL DOING 'these things' "yourself"?

There are quite severe consequences if that is enabled to continue without a physical defense against it.

These adult human beings BACK THEN REALLY would 'try' just about ANY 'thing' to 'try to' "justify" their OBVIOUSLY Wrong and DISTORTED that they HAD. As can be CLEARLY OBSERVED and SEEN here.

And if you do defend against it, then forming a group with other people to defend against it offers strength in numbers.

ONCE AGAIN, 'these people' just about ALWAYS SAW 'things' AS 'us' VERSES 'them'. Although ALL of 'them' were IN and OF the One family, named; HUMAN BEING.

I'm not worried about governing myself, I'm worried about governing the people who don't follow the non-aggression principle (which I'll state as physical harm is only for stopping real physical harm), who try to harm people I care about.

1. WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care about' SOME people?

2. WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care' here about 'physical harm'. Some of the WORST 'harm AND damage' comes from mental, emotional, sexual, and spiritual 'abuse'. Psychological abuse can be FAR MORE harmful and damaging then just 'physical harm'.

"people I care about" could easily refer to everyone, so I don't think I signaled any lack of care.

I NEVER even alluded to you so-call 'signalling ANY lack of care'. WHY did you PRESUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?

I JUST ASKED you a Truly OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTION here, ONLY. Of which, by the way, you have NOT YET ACTUALLY ANSWERED.

So, if what you SAID and CLAIMED here was true, then WHY do you WORRY ABOUT 'governing' the people that you supposedly 'care' about? WHY do you NOT ALLOW 'them' to 'self-govern' "their" OWN 'selves'?

I didn't limit my care there only in prevention of physical harm,

SO, you STILL WANT to HAVE some sort of 'CONTROL' OVER "others", right?

I merely said that was a cause for worry. Just because I have worry about physical harm doesn't mean I have no concerns for non-physical harm.

I was NEVER even 'thinking' ANY 'thing' like 'this' here.

I do have concerns for people who cause psychological harm but do not consider physical force to be the best way of stopping that.

Do 'you' have CONCERNS for 'you'?

Or, do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' do NOT CAUSE 'psychological harm' TO "others"?

This is where government becomes a naturally demanded collective of people.

So, what 'you' are here essentially saying is, 'you', adult people, collectively demand, so-called 'naturally, that some OTHER 'thing' 'govern' "yourselves".

Is it ONLY 'me' who SEES the ABSOLUTELY STUPIDITY and ABSURDITY of such a 'thing' as 'this'?

The general category for your belief would be pacifism or anarchism, and that is rare.

WHAT BELIEF are you talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

AND, you WILL HAVE TO BE FAR MORE SPECIFIC than just 'your belief'.

THEN, and ONLY THEN, I can PROCEED ON with YOUR LINE OF 'thinking' here.

Then you'd be in the subset of anarchist or pacifist that sees even minimalist government libertarianism as both absolute stupidity and absurd.

Wow, here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of one STARTING OFF WITH one CLEARLY False and Wrong PRESUMPTION, and then MOVING ALONG in a COMPLETELY FURTHER LINE OF False AND Wrong 'thinking' or BELIEVING.

If forced to guess, I'd say there are 300,000 people on Earth who share your sentiments, but perhaps you're the only one on this forum expressing this.

LOL you have NOT YET even BEGUN to UNDERSTAND my sentiments. your ASSUMPTIONS and GUESSES above are CLEARLY Wrong AND Incorrect and do NOT even come CLOSE.

Now, I TOTALLY AGREE that 'a new born human babies', and 'young children', would, NATURALLY expect and/or demand that some OTHER 'thing' LOOKS AFTER, CARES FOR, and GUIDES 'them'. BUT, that A 'matured human being' would expect or demand 'such a thing' I find TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. And that 'you', people, supposedly do 'this' COLLECTIVELY is even MORE IRRESPONSIBLE and that some of 'you' even think or BELIEVE that 'this' IS 'natural' is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

NO 'child' likes to be TOLD 'what to do', let alone ANY 'adult' that I KNOW OF. Unless, OF COURSE, they HAVE BEEN 'abused' 'too much' and now HAVE some sort of 'mental issue'.

The fact is humans fight each other, and any intervention by multiple people designed to resolve the issue can be considered as a government.

Even if you LET 'young children' to fight, bicker, or quarrel WITH "each other" 'they' STILL KNOW that 'this' IS Wrong, and WILL even ASK for some sort of 'governance', FROM the one's who are MEANT TO BE the responsible ones anyway.

But 'these' ARE 'young children'. Surely, 'this' SEEKING 'governance' or even 'guidance' FROM "others" would HAVE DISSIPATED COMPLETELY FROM one who has Truly 'grown up' and 'matured'? Yet you are SAYING that 'you', as an adult human being, and "others" STILL SEEK OUT 'governance' and/or 'guidance' FROM "others", right?

There are people who seek to do evil.

OF COURSE 'they' WOULD, considering the 'societies' and 'governments' that 'they' HAVE HAD TO live WITH, IN, and ENDURE.

By the way, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, in the days of when this is being written, DO 'evil'. Most of 'you' are just COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to 'this Fact' and/or just DISBELIEVE 'this' to be TRUE.

Sometimes the person doing evil is stronger than a weaker person and bullies them. The weaker person may want to get help with their issue by getting stronger people who help them. That is the starting point of a government collective. It is wrong for the stronger person to bully the weaker person, but it is not wrong for the weaker person to get help from stronger people to stop the evil person from doing evil.

By what MEANS or FORCE of 'stopping' here are you talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

When I'm wronged as and adult by another adult, and the person who I'm wronged is stronger than I am, then I seek out partners to overcome the strength of my opponent to prevent the wrong from continuing. Is a weaker person supposed to refrain from forming a team?

one could wonder WHY 'you' are so FIXATED ONLY WITH 'physical violence' ALONE here?

Even just one family on Earth would lead to conflict that would involve force by multiple people involved.

REALLY?

To 'you' it IS a COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY FOR 'you' to just 'get along' WITH "others"?

It seems a complete and absolute impossibility for me to get along with people who refuse to contain their urges to try to physically assault me.

WELL when 'you' ARE being emotionally, mentally, or spiritually ABUSIVE TO "others", then SOMETIMES the ONLY WAY that 'they' CAN RETALIATE is THROUGH being 'physical'.

Just MAYBE if 'you' STOPPED ASSAULTING 'them' FIRST, then 'they' would NOT ASSAULT 'you' AFTERWARDS.

WHY do 'you' seem to have a FIXATION WITH just 'physical assaults' here ONLY?

Being tolerant of abuse that I am unable to stop by myself is not what I consider to be getting along.

And being tolerant of YOUR abuse, ON and OF 'them', that 'they' are UNABLE TO STOP, other than through 'physicality', is NOT what 'they' probably consider to be getting along NEITHER.

Also, you appear to have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED or MISUNDERSTOOD MY POINT here. But 'this' is JUST BECAUSE 'you' have, ONCE MORE, FAILED COMPLETELY to JUST ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION I posed, and ASKED 'you', and have NOT made absolutely ANY ATTEMPT TO GAIN ANY UNDERSTANDING of my view/s here.

Bullies target people who are weaker than them self.

YES, ALL of 'you', adult human beings, or "bullies" if 'you' like to USE 'that word, DO DO 'THIS', and WAY TOO OFTEN I will add.

The same people who bully by the power of the state simply change their scale of bullying if their government job gets eliminated.

you REALLY DO appear to have A VERY narrowed perspective of 'things' here. Do you even LIKE to GATHER and OBTAIN the views OF "others"?

Also, ONCE 'you', human beings, EVOLVE ENOUGH to GAIN 'understanding', itself, that is; TO KNOW thy 'Self', FULLY and EXACTLY, then UNDERSTANDING WHY absolutely EVERY 'thing' 'you', human beings, think and DO also BECOMES KNOWN, from which 'forgiveness' FOR ALL just NATURALLY FOLLOWS and FLOWS.

See, it was ONLY WITH the FULLY UNDERSTANDING, itself, OF WHY people DO, what they DO, COULD and DOES 'forgiveness', itself, NATURALLY OCCUR. AND, OBVIOUSLY WITH FORGIVENESS and UNDERSTANDING there IS NO 'conflict' AT ALL.

It is ONLY FROM NOT UNDERSTANDING or FROM A MISUNDERSTANDING that 'conflict' BEGINS, and OCCURS.

Government at its most broad meaning is just human control.

And, as I SAID earlier, 'self-governance' is the ONLY 'governance' that ACTUALLY, REALLY, WORKS.

Self-government encourages other-government because other people exist and can act without regard for the non-aggression principle.

Look, if 'this' is what you want to BELIEVE is true, then by all means CONTINUE TO DO SO. I am CERTAINLY NOT even going to 'try to' STOP 'you'.

I don't think of a written social contract as being required, I think of it as being the civilized approach to government.

BUT 'you', human beings, were FAR MORE so-called 'civilized' BEFORE 'you' evolved to create paper, ink, and 'written signatures'.

I think of human government as natural guarantee of the nature of humanity.

If 'we' were to LOOK AROUND at 'the earth', in the days when this is being written, then is 'human government' REALLY 'working' FOR 'you'?

And, what IS the 'nature of humanity' ANYWAY?

Also, 'human government' can ALSO INCLUDE 'self-government'. BUT, that kind of 'self-governance' has NOT WORKED SO FAR. and this is just BECAUSE 'you', human beings, are YET to COME-TO-KNOW thy Self. That is; WHO 'I' AM, EXACTLY, AS WELL.

ONCE 'this' BECOMES KNOWN BY 'you', people' ALSO, then the 'Self-governing' COMES-INTO-PLAY, and COMES-TO-WORK, properly AND efficiently I will add.

The best way to protect myself from others who do wrong is not individually, it is collectively by joining with other like-minded people.

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'you', human beings, HAVE TO 'protect' "yourselves" AGAINST "yourselves". And, 'you' DO 'this' by forming 'GROUPS' and "arming yourselves", and AGAINST "yourselves". The ABSURDITY and STUPIDITY OF speaks FOR itself. And, by the way, is a Truly HILARIOUS 'thing' to WATCH and OBSERVE FROM 'our perspective', anyway. Although it would, OBVIOUSLY, be a Truly FRIGHTENING and SCARY WAY TO live, FROM 'your perspective'.

And, the more important the agreement is with the collective, the more important it is to be in writing.

Okay, OBVIOUSLY 'you' have ALSO come here to just EXPRESS 'your' VIEWS, ONLY, which 'you' BELIEVE are the BEST and RIGHT ones, and which ARE the ones 'you' BELIEVE EVERY one "else" should HAVE and HOLD, AS WELL.

I have insufficient information about what happened before recorded history regarding people behaving without civility.

1. WHEN do you think or BELIEVE so-called 'civility' CAME-TO-EXIST? And, IF you EVER DO ANSWER this QUESTION, then I am pretty sure we will NOT be surprised by YOUR ANSWER.

2. WHAT has HOW 'you', human beings, 'behaved' BEFORE 'recorded history' even got to do WITH absolutely ANY 'thing' that I have SAID and WRITTEN here?

It seems like the earliest recorded history seems filled with plenty of violence of both the state and domestically among family members.

Have you SEEN or HEARD the 'recorded history', OF 'you', human beings, say in the last 2023 years or so prior to when this is being written?

Even UP TO 'this VERY DAY', when these words are being WRITTEN, and RECORDED, here 'you', adult human beings, were FIGHTING and KILLING "each other", and ACTUAL CHILDREN and BABIES, OVER ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL, in REAL TERMS. The ACTUAL VIOLENCE being OBSERVED and WITNESSED, in 'these days', of 'these words' being WRITTEN and RECORDED, ARE, and WERE, A TOTAL DISGRACE. Especially CONSIDERING what 'you', human beings, ARE ACTUALLY REALLY and Truly CAPABLE OF, EXACTLY.

BUT there IS A REASON WHY 'you', human beings, WERE and ARE ALLOWED TO BE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO CHOOSE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that 'you' LIKE and WANT TO.

Which the REASON WHY WILL, TO 'you', and ALREADY HAS, TO 'us', BE REVEALED and COME-TO-LIGHT.

It seems furthermore only after recorded philosophy did humans start to change their views about the injustice of formerly common practices such as physically hitting family members to gain their submission, and at a wider scale using wars to gain slaves and material wealth.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, you ALLEGEDLY have INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION ABOUT what happened BEFORE 'recorded history', regarding people behaving, WITHOUT 'civility', YET you SOMEHOW KNOW, and MUST HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION that there was NO 'civility' BEFORE 'recorded history', AND, that ONLY AFTER 'recorded history' BEGAN was it THEN WHEN 'you', human beings, STARTED TO CHANGE 'your views'.

The CONTRADICTIONS and HYPOCRISY here IS BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS. Can 'you' ALSO SEE 'this' 'now', "rootseeker"?

I believe people who highly value a freedom-loving civil society should have a similar belief system as I do.

BUT, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO think or BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' you like "rootseeker". So, 'you' ARE, ALREADY, LIVING IN A 'freedom-loving' society, regarding 'this FREEDOM'. Although, OBVIOUSLY 'it' IS NOT A VERY so-called 'civil' one AT ALL, NOR A 'FREE' one in OTHER regards.

Also, If you can BELIEVE such a 'thing', then are "others" ALLOWED TO ALSO FREELY BELIEVE that 'you' SHOULD have A SIMILAR BELIEF SYSTEM as 'they' DO?

Or, does 'this' ONLY WORK ONE WAY?

If 'it' DOES, then 'you' ARE NOT VALUING, AT ALL, let alone HIGHLY, A Truly 'freedom-loving' society.

In Fact BELIEVING that "others" SHOULD have A SIMILAR BELIEF AS 'you' DO, is IN TOTAL CONTRAST to LIVING IN a Truly 'freedom-loving' society, and TO DO what 'you' ARE DOING here could NOT BE MORE HYPOCRITICAL even IF 'you' TRIED TO and WANTED TO BE.

Given an ordered set of virtues and values, there is an ordered set of beliefs and rules that help one to achieve those virtues and values.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And what would THOSE so-called 'ordered set of virtues and values' BE, EXACTLY?

The 'mormon' ones?
The 'islam' ones?
The 'jewish' ones?
The 'hindu' ones?
The "american" government ones? OR, MAYBE,
The "christian" ones?

Specific world views lead to a set of preferred behaviors, customs, and ideas that are the best and right ones which favor that specific system of values.

Maybe SO. BUT, the ONLY 'specific world views' that DO LEAD TO a set of preferred behaviors, customs, and/or ideas that are the BEST and RIGHT ones FOR EVERY one, are ONLY 'those ones' that ABSOLUTELY EVERY one can AGREE WITH and ACCEPT. And, TOGETHER, as One, ONLY.

ALL and EVERY OTHER 'set of world views' HAVE and WILL LEAD TO quarreling, bickering, arguing, fighting, and/or WARRING. ANY and ALL 'specific world views' that ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH ABSOLUTELY EVERY one LEADS TO UPHEAVAL and DISHARMONY.

ONLY 'that', which is IN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, as One, CAN and WILL and DOES LEAD TO Peace, and Harmony, FOR EVERY one, as One.

And, 'that EXACT specific world view', can ONLY be 'run' Correctly THROUGH and BY a 'self-governing' 'society'. Which JUST MEANS A society WHERE EVERY one is DOING 'voluntarily', and NOT because 'they' are 'forced' TO.

If another person has an insufficiently close order of virtues and values, then the only thing I want them to believe is we shouldn't be anywhere near each other and require a distance because we cannot get along.

So, it appears, 'you', "rootseeker", REALLY can NOT 'get along' WITH "other people".

But THE VERY REASON FOR 'this' IS ALREADY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS here.

I believe certain personality types are not compatible with other certain personality types.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk ABOUT ANOTHER PRIME example OF an 'indoctrinated' AND 'programmed' adult human being.

Now, WHAT so-called 'personality types' can 'you' GET ALONG WITH, and which ones can 'you' NOT GET ALONG WITH "rootseeker"?

Also, WHAT so-called 'personality type' do 'you' think or BELIEVE 'you' ARE, EXACTLY?

I can love them and forgive them despite their evils or moral differences, but I cannot live with them peacefully.

WHY NOT? WHAT IS 'your' INABILITIES and SHORTCOMINGS here? WHAT IS Wrong WITH 'you' "rootseeker"?

There is room for a certain fraction of people to be self-governing as pacifists in a freedom-loving civil society, but after a large enough fraction of such people are together they would probably be pillaged by savages that are not opposed to forming collectives.

SO, WHEN 'you' CLAIMED above that it was ALL RIGHT to 'form collectives' WHEN 'you' WANTED TO OPPOSE "another", then does 'this' MEAN that 'you' WOULD BE a so-called "savage" ALSO?

OR, is 'it' DIFFERENT WHEN 'you' 'form collectives'?

[rootseeker]

[see above post by Age to rootseeker]

I said "Self-government can work for a population of people who purely ascribe to such self-rule as the carbon rule of "live and let live" and you replied with "But 'this' is obviously NOT correct, and in fact VERY False and UNTRUE." and later said "And, 'that EXACT specific world view', can ONLY be 'run' Correctly THROUGH and BY a 'self-governing' 'society'. Which JUST MEANS A society WHERE EVERY one is DOING 'voluntarily', and NOT because 'they' are 'forced' TO. ". I can't tell the difference between my initial statement which you say is obviously untrue, and your own later statement which states self-government can work. What is the difference?

Does self-government work in a geographic area where a population of 8% of people do not ascribe to self-government philosophy with the specific attitude of "I pursue my their self-interest without any regard for others." as was claimed to be the case by Adam Grant in his 2014 presentation "Who Are the Givers, Takers and Matchers in the Workplace?".? Adam Grant has said that while there are a few more "givers" than "takers", 8% of people are unsympathetic takers while in another video says there are 19% of people are all types of takers. ("Are you a Giver or a Taker?" Adam Grant 2017).

You said "WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care about' SOME people?"" and also "I NEVER even alluded to you so-call 'signalling ANY lack of care'. WHY did you PRESUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?". Well I do perceive an presumption and allusion there whether it is there or not, so I'll answer the question as if the presumption somehow isn't there. I don't suppose that everything I do can provide concrete help to each and every one human that exists. However, I can help specific humans with specific actions. So in that way, I provide care for some humans but not others. I provide more help to some humans than others. When I offer a drink, I don't split into billions of smaller cups... it is provided to a single human. So by some theory I could "care about everyone equally" but in practice I can provide more care for others overall by providing more care for people near my location than people at a maximum distance away. Furthermore, some people would use resources I give to harm others. I avoid giving resources to people who seem at risk of doing harm to others. So in the context of providing direct material help to others, I only care about some people. In the broadest sense of care, I try to have care for all people.

My beliefs about human civility before recorded history are based on my intuition of human nature, and are held with mild confidence. I estimate based on that intuition, that the vast majority of tribes were not civil, while a small minority of the tribes were civil. As for the non-tribal forms of society I doubt any of them were civil. One can see what kind of governance or lack thereof happened with such tribes by looking at today's small tribes. One of the most well isolated and known to be quite small tribes of today made headlines for killing someone who went onto the island uninvited, in an attempt to interact with the natives.

Today's world population is neither freedom-loving nor civil by either pacifist definition nor libertarian definition. Most of humanity today believes in violence to force speech in at least some situations, violence for getting roads, violence for getting schooling, violence for food, violence for shelter, and violence for clothing. So I don't see how a definition of civil as violence being only for self-defense applies to today's society, or comes remotely close to the ballpark. A freedom-loving society doesn't have licensing and permits either. Yet every society I know about has that evil of violent aggression.

One specific personality type I'd fail to get along is a narcissistic sociopath who wants to rape me about twice daily as an unwanted life-long partner. My traditional plan has been to fight off the rapist. I'm not sure why that plan would be considered a shortcoming except by the premise that "all physical aggression against another person is always wrong". I focus on physical violence for this topic because it is easier to identify the resulting damage than with non-physical abuse. However, I'm open to other ideas about what to do when someone invites them self into my house and starts to feel on my body without permission, announcing their intention to start a family together in life-long bondage.

[Age]

[see above post by Age to rootseeker]

I said "Self-government can work for a population of people who purely ascribe to such self-rule as the carbon rule of "live and let live" and you replied with "But 'this' is obviously NOT correct, and in fact VERY False and UNTRUE." and later said "And, 'that EXACT specific world view', can ONLY be 'run' Correctly THROUGH and BY a 'self-governing' 'society'. Which JUST MEANS A society WHERE EVERY one is DOING 'voluntarily', and NOT because 'they' are 'forced' TO. ". I can't tell the difference between my initial statement which you say is obviously untrue, and your own later statement which states self-government can work. What is the difference?

The difference is 'your' 'self-government' only works for SOME people, whereas 'my' 'self-governing' works for EVERY one.

Does self-government work in a geographic area where a population of 8% of people do not ascribe to self-government philosophy with the specific attitude of "I pursue my their self-interest without any regard for others."

Yes.

as was claimed to be the case by Adam Grant in his 2014 presentation "Who Are the Givers, Takers and Matchers in the Workplace?".?

I have absolutely NO idea as I have NOT seen NOR heard 'that presentation'.

Adam Grant has said that while there are a few more "givers" than "takers", 8% of people are unsympathetic takers while in another video says there are 19% of people are all types of takers. ("Are you a Giver or a Taker?" Adam Grant 2017).

Okay.

You said "WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care about' SOME people?"" and also "I NEVER even alluded to you so-call 'signalling ANY lack of care'. WHY did you PRESUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?". Well I do perceive an presumption and allusion there whether it is there or not, so I'll answer the question as if the presumption somehow isn't there. I don't suppose that everything I do can provide concrete help to each and every one human that exists.

WHY would you even think, PRESUME, or even SUPPOSE that absolutely EVERY 'thing' that you do could provide so-called 'concrete' help to each and EVERY human being, which was currently existing at the time of 'that doing'?

Talk about taking 'my words' to an ABSOLUTE EXTREMITY.

However, I can help specific humans with specific actions. So in that way, I provide care for some humans but not others.

If 'this' is what you BELIEVE you can ONLY do, then 'this' IS ALL you can REALLY ONLY DO, right?

I provide more help to some humans than others. When I offer a drink, I don't split into billions of smaller cups... it is provided to a single human.

'you' appear here to have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED, MISUNDERSTOOD, and/or MISCONSTRUED what a 'self-governing society' ACTUALLY MEANS, and IS REFERRING TO, to 'me'. But then BECAUSE you have NEVER sought out ANY CLARIFICATION, AT ALL, that you now have NO idea NOR clue as to what a 'self-governing society' IS, EXACTLY, to me, is NOT UNSURPRISING, AT ALL REALLY.

So by some theory I could "care about everyone equally" but in practice I can provide more care for others overall by providing more care for people near my location than people at a maximum distance away.

you COULD, IF ONLY caring for SOME, and NOT ALL, was your CHOICE.

Furthermore, some people would use resources I give to harm others. I avoid giving resources to people who seem at risk of doing harm to others.

It is 'this' type of MISBEHAVING and JUDGING WHY 'the world' IS in the, EXACT, MESS that 'it' is IN now, when this is being written.

A Truly 'self-governing society' ONLY WORKS WHEN, and AFTER, WHY people, including "one's" OWN 'self', ARE DOING HARM is ALREADY FULLY KNOWN.

And, ONCE the WHY IS KNOWN, then PREVENTING ALL people FROM DOING HARM is THE GOAL. So, to AVOID giving the ACTUAL RESOURCES NEEDED to PREVENT 'those' who 'seem at risk of doing harm', (which IS ALL of 'you', adult human beings by the way), which ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED, one helps in PROVIDING ALL that IS NEEDED to HELP EVERY one FROM doing ANY HARM to ANY 'thing', EVERY one.

So in the context of providing direct material help to others, I only care about some people.

'This' has be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS from the outset here.

In the broadest sense of care, I try to have care for all people.

In the Truly 'self-governing society' 'we' do NOT 'try to' have care for all people, but ACTUALLY DO CARE FOR EVERY one, EQUALLY, as One.

My beliefs about human civility before recorded history are based on my intuition of human nature, and are held with mild confidence.

So, REALLY, are 'your beliefs' DEEMED 'suitable' here, in a 'philosophy forum', where views are 'expected' to get TESTED FOR Accuracy?

Now, what IS;

1. Human nature, EXACTLY?

2. your intuition, which 'you' base 'things' ON, EXACTLY?

3. Where does 'mild confidence' lay on the spectrum between NOT KNOWING, and, KNOWING?

I estimate based on that intuition, that the vast majority of tribes were not civil, while a small minority of the tribes were civil.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk about a GREAT example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, based on absolutely NOTHING MORE than just what IS ASSUMED and/or BELIEVED to be true.

As for the non-tribal forms of society I doubt any of them were civil. One can see what kind of governance or lack thereof happened with such tribes by looking at today's small tribes. One of the most well isolated and known to be quite small tribes of today made headlines for killing someone who went onto the island uninvited, in an attempt to interact with the natives.

And would absolutely ANY one BLAME 'them'?

After SEEING what the rest of 'you', adult human beings, had done to ALL of the societies and cultures, around the world, that HAD VERY LAUGHABLY, and so-called, been 'civilized', I also, as a member of that 'society', would do ALL I could to keep 'you' Truly GREEDY, SELFISH, ABUSIVE, HARMFUL, and environmental DESTROYING people AWAY FROM DESTROYING 'this society' and 'environment' AS WELL.

Also, and VERY OBVIOUSLY, if NO one had gone 'there' PREVIOUSLY and 'MESSED UP', then 'further followers' would NOT have been KILLED and/or DETERRED.

Now, did you ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION above about, 'What IS 'human nature', EXACTLY?

If yes, and your ANSWER includes that 'violence' towards "others" is some part of 'human nature', then 'how much', and WHY, EXACTLY?

Today's world population is neither freedom-loving nor civil by either pacifist definition nor libertarian definition.

NOR by ANY REAL 'standard' NEITHER.

Most of humanity today believes in violence to force speech in at least some situations, violence for getting roads, violence for getting schooling, violence for food, violence for shelter, and violence for clothing.

And, a BIG PART of WHY 'the world' is IN 'the mess' that 'it' IS IN is BECAUSE OF 'beliefs' like 'these' ones here, and what ACTUALLY OCCURS and HAPPENS BECAUSE OF these types of BELIEFS.

So I don't see how a definition of civil as violence being only for self-defense applies to today's society, or comes remotely close to the ballpark.

I do NOT even know what you are on about here, NOR what 'direction' or 'path' you are even 'trying to' go down here, EXACTLY.

A freedom-loving society doesn't have licensing and permits either. Yet every society I know about has that evil of violent aggression.

The so-called 'evil or violent' 'aggression' WAS a NECESSARY PART of evolution. If 'things', species, do NOT have the 'aggression' to KILL or TAKE what IS NEEDED for continued existence, then 'those species' do NOT survive to continue on, to evolve INTO what comes NEXT.

But 'this VERY NATURAL aggression' WAS, and STILL IS, FOR 'species' SURVIVAL, and NOT FOR an 'individual' OF A species survival.

One specific personality type I'd fail to get along is a narcissistic sociopath who wants to rape me about twice daily as an unwanted life-long partner.

you have OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED what I have been SAYING, and ALLUDING TO, here. But 'this' IS just BECAUSE 'you' WANT TO TELL 'us' 'your views', ONLY.

My traditional plan has been to fight off the rapist. I'm not sure why that plan would be considered a shortcoming except by the premise that "all physical aggression against another person is always wrong".

What we can CLEARLY SEE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN and HOW one 'TRIES TO' "justify" their Wrong thinking and DOING.

'Physical aggression' is ALWAYS OKAY, ALL RIGHT, and ACCEPTABLE WHEN 'the amount of aggression' ALIGNS WITH what one BELIEVES IS 'right'. Which IS Truly LAUGHABLE TO WATCH, and OBSERVE.

OF COURSE ALL 'aggression' AGAINST "another" IS Wrong, WHEN 'it' IS NOT NEEDED.

But what 'you', adult human beings, CONTINUALLY MISSED, in the days when this was being written was, WHY do ALL people 'grow up' DOING what they DO?

UNCOVER, FIND OUT, and/or LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, the 'WHY', THEN, and ONLY THEN, WILL BE, and way, ALL UNACCEPTABLE, and AGGRESSIVE, behavior WIPED OUT, and DESTROYED.

I focus on physical violence for this topic because it is easier to identify the resulting damage than with non-physical abuse.

Well 'that' is VERY CONVENIENT, hey?

However, I'm open to other ideas about what to do when someone invites them self into my house and starts to feel on my body without permission, announcing their intention to start a family together in life-long bondage.

Well if you are WAITING UNTIL someone has ALREADY ENTERED 'your' house, and/or 'your' body, then you are leaving 'things' here until 'it' IS TO LATE.

PREVENTION IS the SOLUTION here, NOT AGGRESSION 'after the fact'.

[rootseeker]

[see above post by Age to rootseeker]

I said "Self-government can work for a population of people who purely ascribe to such self-rule as the carbon rule of "live and let live" and you replied with "But 'this' is obviously NOT correct, and in fact VERY False and UNTRUE." and later said "And, 'that EXACT specific world view', can ONLY be 'run' Correctly THROUGH and BY a 'self-governing' 'society'. Which JUST MEANS A society WHERE EVERY one is DOING 'voluntarily', and NOT because 'they' are 'forced' TO. ". I can't tell the difference between my initial statement which you say is obviously untrue, and your own later statement which states self-government can work. What is the difference?

The difference is 'your' 'self-government' only works for SOME people, whereas 'my' 'self-governing' works for EVERY one.

Does self-government work in a geographic area where a population of 8% of people do not ascribe to self-government philosophy with the specific attitude of "I pursue my their self-interest without any regard for others."

Yes.

as was claimed to be the case by Adam Grant in his 2014 presentation "Who Are the Givers, Takers and Matchers in the Workplace?".?

I have absolutely NO idea as I have NOT seen NOR heard 'that presentation'.

Adam Grant has said that while there are a few more "givers" than "takers", 8% of people are unsympathetic takers while in another video says there are 19% of people are all types of takers. ("Are you a Giver or a Taker?" Adam Grant 2017).

Okay.

You said "WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care about' SOME people?"" and also "I NEVER even alluded to you so-call 'signalling ANY lack of care'. WHY did you PRESUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?". Well I do perceive an presumption and allusion there whether it is there or not, so I'll answer the question as if the presumption somehow isn't there. I don't suppose that everything I do can provide concrete help to each and every one human that exists.

WHY would you even think, PRESUME, or even SUPPOSE that absolutely EVERY 'thing' that you do could provide so-called 'concrete' help to each and EVERY human being, which was currently existing at the time of 'that doing'?

Talk about taking 'my words' to an ABSOLUTE EXTREMITY.

However, I can help specific humans with specific actions. So in that way, I provide care for some humans but not others.

If 'this' is what you BELIEVE you can ONLY do, then 'this' IS ALL you can REALLY ONLY DO, right?

I provide more help to some humans than others. When I offer a drink, I don't split into billions of smaller cups... it is provided to a single human.

'you' appear here to have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED, MISUNDERSTOOD, and/or MISCONSTRUED what a 'self-governing society' ACTUALLY MEANS, and IS REFERRING TO, to 'me'. But then BECAUSE you have NEVER sought out ANY CLARIFICATION, AT ALL, that you now have NO idea NOR clue as to what a 'self-governing society' IS, EXACTLY, to me, is NOT UNSURPRISING, AT ALL REALLY.

So by some theory I could "care about everyone equally" but in practice I can provide more care for others overall by providing more care for people near my location than people at a maximum distance away.

you COULD, IF ONLY caring for SOME, and NOT ALL, was your CHOICE.

Furthermore, some people would use resources I give to harm others. I avoid giving resources to people who seem at risk of doing harm to others.

It is 'this' type of MISBEHAVING and JUDGING WHY 'the world' IS in the, EXACT, MESS that 'it' is IN now, when this is being written.

A Truly 'self-governing society' ONLY WORKS WHEN, and AFTER, WHY people, including "one's" OWN 'self', ARE DOING HARM is ALREADY FULLY KNOWN.

And, ONCE the WHY IS KNOWN, then PREVENTING ALL people FROM DOING HARM is THE GOAL. So, to AVOID giving the ACTUAL RESOURCES NEEDED to PREVENT 'those' who 'seem at risk of doing harm', (which IS ALL of 'you', adult human beings by the way), which ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED, one helps in PROVIDING ALL that IS NEEDED to HELP EVERY one FROM doing ANY HARM to ANY 'thing', EVERY one.

So in the context of providing direct material help to others, I only care about some people.

'This' has be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS from the outset here.

In the broadest sense of care, I try to have care for all people.

In the Truly 'self-governing society' 'we' do NOT 'try to' have care for all people, but ACTUALLY DO CARE FOR EVERY one, EQUALLY, as One.

My beliefs about human civility before recorded history are based on my intuition of human nature, and are held with mild confidence.

So, REALLY, are 'your beliefs' DEEMED 'suitable' here, in a 'philosophy forum', where views are 'expected' to get TESTED FOR Accuracy?

Now, what IS;

1. Human nature, EXACTLY?

2. your intuition, which 'you' base 'things' ON, EXACTLY?

3. Where does 'mild confidence' lay on the spectrum between NOT KNOWING, and, KNOWING?

I estimate based on that intuition, that the vast majority of tribes were not civil, while a small minority of the tribes were civil.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk about a GREAT example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, based on absolutely NOTHING MORE than just what IS ASSUMED and/or BELIEVED to be true.

As for the non-tribal forms of society I doubt any of them were civil. One can see what kind of governance or lack thereof happened with such tribes by looking at today's small tribes. One of the most well isolated and known to be quite small tribes of today made headlines for killing someone who went onto the island uninvited, in an attempt to interact with the natives.

And would absolutely ANY one BLAME 'them'?

After SEEING what the rest of 'you', adult human beings, had done to ALL of the societies and cultures, around the world, that HAD VERY LAUGHABLY, and so-called, been 'civilized', I also, as a member of that 'society', would do ALL I could to keep 'you' Truly GREEDY, SELFISH, ABUSIVE, HARMFUL, and environmental DESTROYING people AWAY FROM DESTROYING 'this society' and 'environment' AS WELL.

Also, and VERY OBVIOUSLY, if NO one had gone 'there' PREVIOUSLY and 'MESSED UP', then 'further followers' would NOT have been KILLED and/or DETERRED.

Now, did you ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION above about, 'What IS 'human nature', EXACTLY?

If yes, and your ANSWER includes that 'violence' towards "others" is some part of 'human nature', then 'how much', and WHY, EXACTLY?

Today's world population is neither freedom-loving nor civil by either pacifist definition nor libertarian definition.

NOR by ANY REAL 'standard' NEITHER.

Most of humanity today believes in violence to force speech in at least some situations, violence for getting roads, violence for getting schooling, violence for food, violence for shelter, and violence for clothing.

And, a BIG PART of WHY 'the world' is IN 'the mess' that 'it' IS IN is BECAUSE OF 'beliefs' like 'these' ones here, and what ACTUALLY OCCURS and HAPPENS BECAUSE OF these types of BELIEFS.

So I don't see how a definition of civil as violence being only for self-defense applies to today's society, or comes remotely close to the ballpark.

I do NOT even know what you are on about here, NOR what 'direction' or 'path' you are even 'trying to' go down here, EXACTLY.

A freedom-loving society doesn't have licensing and permits either. Yet every society I know about has that evil of violent aggression.

The so-called 'evil or violent' 'aggression' WAS a NECESSARY PART of evolution. If 'things', species, do NOT have the 'aggression' to KILL or TAKE what IS NEEDED for continued existence, then 'those species' do NOT survive to continue on, to evolve INTO what comes NEXT.

But 'this VERY NATURAL aggression' WAS, and STILL IS, FOR 'species' SURVIVAL, and NOT FOR an 'individual' OF A species survival.

One specific personality type I'd fail to get along is a narcissistic sociopath who wants to rape me about twice daily as an unwanted life-long partner.

you have OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED what I have been SAYING, and ALLUDING TO, here. But 'this' IS just BECAUSE 'you' WANT TO TELL 'us' 'your views', ONLY.

My traditional plan has been to fight off the rapist. I'm not sure why that plan would be considered a shortcoming except by the premise that "all physical aggression against another person is always wrong".

What we can CLEARLY SEE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN and HOW one 'TRIES TO' "justify" their Wrong thinking and DOING.

'Physical aggression' is ALWAYS OKAY, ALL RIGHT, and ACCEPTABLE WHEN 'the amount of aggression' ALIGNS WITH what one BELIEVES IS 'right'. Which IS Truly LAUGHABLE TO WATCH, and OBSERVE.

OF COURSE ALL 'aggression' AGAINST "another" IS Wrong, WHEN 'it' IS NOT NEEDED.

But what 'you', adult human beings, CONTINUALLY MISSED, in the days when this was being written was, WHY do ALL people 'grow up' DOING what they DO?

UNCOVER, FIND OUT, and/or LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, the 'WHY', THEN, and ONLY THEN, WILL BE, and way, ALL UNACCEPTABLE, and AGGRESSIVE, behavior WIPED OUT, and DESTROYED.

I focus on physical violence for this topic because it is easier to identify the resulting damage than with non-physical abuse.

Well 'that' is VERY CONVENIENT, hey?

However, I'm open to other ideas about what to do when someone invites them self into my house and starts to feel on my body without permission, announcing their intention to start a family together in life-long bondage.

Well if you are WAITING UNTIL someone has ALREADY ENTERED 'your' house, and/or 'your' body, then you are leaving 'things' here until 'it' IS TO LATE.

PREVENTION IS the SOLUTION here, NOT AGGRESSION 'after the fact'.

Is rape a situation in which aggression against another is needed? In a population where absolutely everyone will only be violent for self-defense and no other purpose, there is no violence. This is why I consider self-defense to be a moral principle compatible with people who value peace. How is aggression prevented in a well-run self-governing society?

[Advocate]

[quote=LuckyR post_id=661878 time=1692227539 user_id=24359]
[quote=Advocate post_id=657554 time=1690057395 user_id=15238]
Government is sociopathic, inefficient, psychotic, wasteful, borderline, filthy, dyslexic, ignorant, schizophrenic, and violent... and you still treat it as legitimate?!

[b]If it were a person[/b] you'd recommend the death penalty.
[/quote]

Uummm... a government's decisions and actions (since they're groups of people) are, by definition those of persons.

As to your first paragraph, I'm interested on your opinions of corporations.
[/quote]

A group of people working toward a common cause merely means efficiency. A capitalist corporation is a separate matter.

[LuckyR]

Government is sociopathic, inefficient, psychotic, wasteful, borderline, filthy, dyslexic, ignorant, schizophrenic, and violent... and you still treat it as legitimate?!

If it were a person you'd recommend the death penalty.

Uummm... a government's decisions and actions (since they're groups of people) are, by definition those of persons.

As to your first paragraph, I'm interested on your opinions of corporations.

A group of people working toward a common cause merely means efficiency. A capitalist corporation is a separate matter.

Separate, eh ? I find it humorous when folks rail against "da gubment", because they're this or that, yet blithely give corporations a pass. As if those who only see citizens as a market aren't going to treat folks like this or that.

[Age]

I said "Self-government can work for a population of people who purely ascribe to such self-rule as the carbon rule of "live and let live" and you replied with "But 'this' is obviously NOT correct, and in fact VERY False and UNTRUE." and later said "And, 'that EXACT specific world view', can ONLY be 'run' Correctly THROUGH and BY a 'self-governing' 'society'. Which JUST MEANS A society WHERE EVERY one is DOING 'voluntarily', and NOT because 'they' are 'forced' TO. ". I can't tell the difference between my initial statement which you say is obviously untrue, and your own later statement which states self-government can work. What is the difference?

The difference is 'your' 'self-government' only works for SOME people, whereas 'my' 'self-governing' works for EVERY one.

Does self-government work in a geographic area where a population of 8% of people do not ascribe to self-government philosophy with the specific attitude of "I pursue my their self-interest without any regard for others."

Yes.

as was claimed to be the case by Adam Grant in his 2014 presentation "Who Are the Givers, Takers and Matchers in the Workplace?".?

I have absolutely NO idea as I have NOT seen NOR heard 'that presentation'.

Adam Grant has said that while there are a few more "givers" than "takers", 8% of people are unsympathetic takers while in another video says there are 19% of people are all types of takers. ("Are you a Giver or a Taker?" Adam Grant 2017).

Okay.

You said "WHY do 'you' ONLY 'care about' SOME people?"" and also "I NEVER even alluded to you so-call 'signalling ANY lack of care'. WHY did you PRESUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?". Well I do perceive an presumption and allusion there whether it is there or not, so I'll answer the question as if the presumption somehow isn't there. I don't suppose that everything I do can provide concrete help to each and every one human that exists.

WHY would you even think, PRESUME, or even SUPPOSE that absolutely EVERY 'thing' that you do could provide so-called 'concrete' help to each and EVERY human being, which was currently existing at the time of 'that doing'?

Talk about taking 'my words' to an ABSOLUTE EXTREMITY.

However, I can help specific humans with specific actions. So in that way, I provide care for some humans but not others.

If 'this' is what you BELIEVE you can ONLY do, then 'this' IS ALL you can REALLY ONLY DO, right?

I provide more help to some humans than others. When I offer a drink, I don't split into billions of smaller cups... it is provided to a single human.

'you' appear here to have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED, MISUNDERSTOOD, and/or MISCONSTRUED what a 'self-governing society' ACTUALLY MEANS, and IS REFERRING TO, to 'me'. But then BECAUSE you have NEVER sought out ANY CLARIFICATION, AT ALL, that you now have NO idea NOR clue as to what a 'self-governing society' IS, EXACTLY, to me, is NOT UNSURPRISING, AT ALL REALLY.

So by some theory I could "care about everyone equally" but in practice I can provide more care for others overall by providing more care for people near my location than people at a maximum distance away.

you COULD, IF ONLY caring for SOME, and NOT ALL, was your CHOICE.

Furthermore, some people would use resources I give to harm others. I avoid giving resources to people who seem at risk of doing harm to others.

It is 'this' type of MISBEHAVING and JUDGING WHY 'the world' IS in the, EXACT, MESS that 'it' is IN now, when this is being written.

A Truly 'self-governing society' ONLY WORKS WHEN, and AFTER, WHY people, including "one's" OWN 'self', ARE DOING HARM is ALREADY FULLY KNOWN.

And, ONCE the WHY IS KNOWN, then PREVENTING ALL people FROM DOING HARM is THE GOAL. So, to AVOID giving the ACTUAL RESOURCES NEEDED to PREVENT 'those' who 'seem at risk of doing harm', (which IS ALL of 'you', adult human beings by the way), which ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED, one helps in PROVIDING ALL that IS NEEDED to HELP EVERY one FROM doing ANY HARM to ANY 'thing', EVERY one.

So in the context of providing direct material help to others, I only care about some people.

'This' has be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS from the outset here.

In the broadest sense of care, I try to have care for all people.

In the Truly 'self-governing society' 'we' do NOT 'try to' have care for all people, but ACTUALLY DO CARE FOR EVERY one, EQUALLY, as One.

My beliefs about human civility before recorded history are based on my intuition of human nature, and are held with mild confidence.

So, REALLY, are 'your beliefs' DEEMED 'suitable' here, in a 'philosophy forum', where views are 'expected' to get TESTED FOR Accuracy?

Now, what IS;

1. Human nature, EXACTLY?

2. your intuition, which 'you' base 'things' ON, EXACTLY?

3. Where does 'mild confidence' lay on the spectrum between NOT KNOWING, and, KNOWING?

I estimate based on that intuition, that the vast majority of tribes were not civil, while a small minority of the tribes were civil.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk about a GREAT example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, based on absolutely NOTHING MORE than just what IS ASSUMED and/or BELIEVED to be true.

As for the non-tribal forms of society I doubt any of them were civil. One can see what kind of governance or lack thereof happened with such tribes by looking at today's small tribes. One of the most well isolated and known to be quite small tribes of today made headlines for killing someone who went onto the island uninvited, in an attempt to interact with the natives.

And would absolutely ANY one BLAME 'them'?

After SEEING what the rest of 'you', adult human beings, had done to ALL of the societies and cultures, around the world, that HAD VERY LAUGHABLY, and so-called, been 'civilized', I also, as a member of that 'society', would do ALL I could to keep 'you' Truly GREEDY, SELFISH, ABUSIVE, HARMFUL, and environmental DESTROYING people AWAY FROM DESTROYING 'this society' and 'environment' AS WELL.

Also, and VERY OBVIOUSLY, if NO one had gone 'there' PREVIOUSLY and 'MESSED UP', then 'further followers' would NOT have been KILLED and/or DETERRED.

Now, did you ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION above about, 'What IS 'human nature', EXACTLY?

If yes, and your ANSWER includes that 'violence' towards "others" is some part of 'human nature', then 'how much', and WHY, EXACTLY?

Today's world population is neither freedom-loving nor civil by either pacifist definition nor libertarian definition.

NOR by ANY REAL 'standard' NEITHER.

Most of humanity today believes in violence to force speech in at least some situations, violence for getting roads, violence for getting schooling, violence for food, violence for shelter, and violence for clothing.

And, a BIG PART of WHY 'the world' is IN 'the mess' that 'it' IS IN is BECAUSE OF 'beliefs' like 'these' ones here, and what ACTUALLY OCCURS and HAPPENS BECAUSE OF these types of BELIEFS.

So I don't see how a definition of civil as violence being only for self-defense applies to today's society, or comes remotely close to the ballpark.

I do NOT even know what you are on about here, NOR what 'direction' or 'path' you are even 'trying to' go down here, EXACTLY.

A freedom-loving society doesn't have licensing and permits either. Yet every society I know about has that evil of violent aggression.

The so-called 'evil or violent' 'aggression' WAS a NECESSARY PART of evolution. If 'things', species, do NOT have the 'aggression' to KILL or TAKE what IS NEEDED for continued existence, then 'those species' do NOT survive to continue on, to evolve INTO what comes NEXT.

But 'this VERY NATURAL aggression' WAS, and STILL IS, FOR 'species' SURVIVAL, and NOT FOR an 'individual' OF A species survival.

One specific personality type I'd fail to get along is a narcissistic sociopath who wants to rape me about twice daily as an unwanted life-long partner.

you have OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED what I have been SAYING, and ALLUDING TO, here. But 'this' IS just BECAUSE 'you' WANT TO TELL 'us' 'your views', ONLY.

My traditional plan has been to fight off the rapist. I'm not sure why that plan would be considered a shortcoming except by the premise that "all physical aggression against another person is always wrong".

What we can CLEARLY SEE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN and HOW one 'TRIES TO' "justify" their Wrong thinking and DOING.

'Physical aggression' is ALWAYS OKAY, ALL RIGHT, and ACCEPTABLE WHEN 'the amount of aggression' ALIGNS WITH what one BELIEVES IS 'right'. Which IS Truly LAUGHABLE TO WATCH, and OBSERVE.

OF COURSE ALL 'aggression' AGAINST "another" IS Wrong, WHEN 'it' IS NOT NEEDED.

But what 'you', adult human beings, CONTINUALLY MISSED, in the days when this was being written was, WHY do ALL people 'grow up' DOING what they DO?

UNCOVER, FIND OUT, and/or LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, the 'WHY', THEN, and ONLY THEN, WILL BE, and way, ALL UNACCEPTABLE, and AGGRESSIVE, behavior WIPED OUT, and DESTROYED.

I focus on physical violence for this topic because it is easier to identify the resulting damage than with non-physical abuse.

Well 'that' is VERY CONVENIENT, hey?

However, I'm open to other ideas about what to do when someone invites them self into my house and starts to feel on my body without permission, announcing their intention to start a family together in life-long bondage.

Well if you are WAITING UNTIL someone has ALREADY ENTERED 'your' house, and/or 'your' body, then you are leaving 'things' here until 'it' IS TO LATE.

PREVENTION IS the SOLUTION here, NOT AGGRESSION 'after the fact'.

Is rape a situation in which aggression against another is needed?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

Some people LOVE and ENJOY getting 'raped'.

In a population where absolutely everyone will only be violent for self-defense and no other purpose, there is no violence.

How is 'this' even LOGICAL, TO you?

So, if EVERY one, and thus ANY one, will ONLY be 'violent' FOR 'self-defense', and FOR NO 'other purpose, then, if, for example, I decide to fly a plane load of human beings into a city skyscraper, and some people 'react' 'violently', FOR 'self-defense', then HOW, EXACTLY, is there NO 'violence' here?

This is why I consider self-defense to be a moral principle compatible with people who value peace.

Okay, 'this' WAS GRASPED and UNDERSTOOD BEFORE, but WHO CARES?

What 'you', personally, 'consider' is of NO REAL IMPORTANCE here.

How is aggression prevented in a well-run self-governing society?

Because children do NOT 'grow up' LEARNING that 'aggression' and 'aggressive behavior' is 'normal' and/or 'acceptable'. Like how 'you', adults, do, in the days when this is being written.

[rootseeker]

The difference is 'your' 'self-government' only works for SOME people, whereas 'my' 'self-governing' works for EVERY one.


Yes.


I have absolutely NO idea as I have NOT seen NOR heard 'that presentation'.



Okay.


WHY would you even think, PRESUME, or even SUPPOSE that absolutely EVERY 'thing' that you do could provide so-called 'concrete' help to each and EVERY human being, which was currently existing at the time of 'that doing'?

Talk about taking 'my words' to an ABSOLUTE EXTREMITY.



If 'this' is what you BELIEVE you can ONLY do, then 'this' IS ALL you can REALLY ONLY DO, right?


'you' appear here to have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISINTERPRETED, MISUNDERSTOOD, and/or MISCONSTRUED what a 'self-governing society' ACTUALLY MEANS, and IS REFERRING TO, to 'me'. But then BECAUSE you have NEVER sought out ANY CLARIFICATION, AT ALL, that you now have NO idea NOR clue as to what a 'self-governing society' IS, EXACTLY, to me, is NOT UNSURPRISING, AT ALL REALLY.


you COULD, IF ONLY caring for SOME, and NOT ALL, was your CHOICE.


It is 'this' type of MISBEHAVING and JUDGING WHY 'the world' IS in the, EXACT, MESS that 'it' is IN now, when this is being written.

A Truly 'self-governing society' ONLY WORKS WHEN, and AFTER, WHY people, including "one's" OWN 'self', ARE DOING HARM is ALREADY FULLY KNOWN.

And, ONCE the WHY IS KNOWN, then PREVENTING ALL people FROM DOING HARM is THE GOAL. So, to AVOID giving the ACTUAL RESOURCES NEEDED to PREVENT 'those' who 'seem at risk of doing harm', (which IS ALL of 'you', adult human beings by the way), which ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED, one helps in PROVIDING ALL that IS NEEDED to HELP EVERY one FROM doing ANY HARM to ANY 'thing', EVERY one.


'This' has be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS from the outset here.


In the Truly 'self-governing society' 'we' do NOT 'try to' have care for all people, but ACTUALLY DO CARE FOR EVERY one, EQUALLY, as One.


So, REALLY, are 'your beliefs' DEEMED 'suitable' here, in a 'philosophy forum', where views are 'expected' to get TESTED FOR Accuracy?

Now, what IS;

1. Human nature, EXACTLY?

2. your intuition, which 'you' base 'things' ON, EXACTLY?

3. Where does 'mild confidence' lay on the spectrum between NOT KNOWING, and, KNOWING?



LOL
LOL
LOL

Talk about a GREAT example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, based on absolutely NOTHING MORE than just what IS ASSUMED and/or BELIEVED to be true.



And would absolutely ANY one BLAME 'them'?

After SEEING what the rest of 'you', adult human beings, had done to ALL of the societies and cultures, around the world, that HAD VERY LAUGHABLY, and so-called, been 'civilized', I also, as a member of that 'society', would do ALL I could to keep 'you' Truly GREEDY, SELFISH, ABUSIVE, HARMFUL, and environmental DESTROYING people AWAY FROM DESTROYING 'this society' and 'environment' AS WELL.

Also, and VERY OBVIOUSLY, if NO one had gone 'there' PREVIOUSLY and 'MESSED UP', then 'further followers' would NOT have been KILLED and/or DETERRED.

Now, did you ANSWER the CLARIFYING QUESTION above about, 'What IS 'human nature', EXACTLY?

If yes, and your ANSWER includes that 'violence' towards "others" is some part of 'human nature', then 'how much', and WHY, EXACTLY?



NOR by ANY REAL 'standard' NEITHER.



And, a BIG PART of WHY 'the world' is IN 'the mess' that 'it' IS IN is BECAUSE OF 'beliefs' like 'these' ones here, and what ACTUALLY OCCURS and HAPPENS BECAUSE OF these types of BELIEFS.




I do NOT even know what you are on about here, NOR what 'direction' or 'path' you are even 'trying to' go down here, EXACTLY.



The so-called 'evil or violent' 'aggression' WAS a NECESSARY PART of evolution. If 'things', species, do NOT have the 'aggression' to KILL or TAKE what IS NEEDED for continued existence, then 'those species' do NOT survive to continue on, to evolve INTO what comes NEXT.

But 'this VERY NATURAL aggression' WAS, and STILL IS, FOR 'species' SURVIVAL, and NOT FOR an 'individual' OF A species survival.



you have OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED what I have been SAYING, and ALLUDING TO, here. But 'this' IS just BECAUSE 'you' WANT TO TELL 'us' 'your views', ONLY.


What we can CLEARLY SEE here is ANOTHER PRIME example of WHEN and HOW one 'TRIES TO' "justify" their Wrong thinking and DOING.

'Physical aggression' is ALWAYS OKAY, ALL RIGHT, and ACCEPTABLE WHEN 'the amount of aggression' ALIGNS WITH what one BELIEVES IS 'right'. Which IS Truly LAUGHABLE TO WATCH, and OBSERVE.

OF COURSE ALL 'aggression' AGAINST "another" IS Wrong, WHEN 'it' IS NOT NEEDED.

But what 'you', adult human beings, CONTINUALLY MISSED, in the days when this was being written was, WHY do ALL people 'grow up' DOING what they DO?

UNCOVER, FIND OUT, and/or LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, the 'WHY', THEN, and ONLY THEN, WILL BE, and way, ALL UNACCEPTABLE, and AGGRESSIVE, behavior WIPED OUT, and DESTROYED.


Well 'that' is VERY CONVENIENT, hey?


Well if you are WAITING UNTIL someone has ALREADY ENTERED 'your' house, and/or 'your' body, then you are leaving 'things' here until 'it' IS TO LATE.

PREVENTION IS the SOLUTION here, NOT AGGRESSION 'after the fact'.

Is rape a situation in which aggression against another is needed?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

Some people LOVE and ENJOY getting 'raped'.

In a population where absolutely everyone will only be violent for self-defense and no other purpose, there is no violence.

How is 'this' even LOGICAL, TO you?

So, if EVERY one, and thus ANY one, will ONLY be 'violent' FOR 'self-defense', and FOR NO 'other purpose, then, if, for example, I decide to fly a plane load of human beings into a city skyscraper, and some people 'react' 'violently', FOR 'self-defense', then HOW, EXACTLY, is there NO 'violence' here?

This is why I consider self-defense to be a moral principle compatible with people who value peace.

Okay, 'this' WAS GRASPED and UNDERSTOOD BEFORE, but WHO CARES?

What 'you', personally, 'consider' is of NO REAL IMPORTANCE here.

How is aggression prevented in a well-run self-governing society?

Because children do NOT 'grow up' LEARNING that 'aggression' and 'aggressive behavior' is 'normal' and/or 'acceptable'. Like how 'you', adults, do, in the days when this is being written.

If you decide to fly a plane load of human beings into a city skyscraper, you live in a population of people in which at least one person is violent for a purpose other than self-defense, so the example does not apply to the hypothetical scenario of a population where absolutely everyone would only only be violent for self-defense and no other purpose.

If humans would 100% always be non-violent if properly taught as you imply, then self-defense is not needed as you say.

[Age]

Is rape a situation in which aggression against another is needed?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

Some people LOVE and ENJOY getting 'raped'.

In a population where absolutely everyone will only be violent for self-defense and no other purpose, there is no violence.

How is 'this' even LOGICAL, TO you?

So, if EVERY one, and thus ANY one, will ONLY be 'violent' FOR 'self-defense', and FOR NO 'other purpose, then, if, for example, I decide to fly a plane load of human beings into a city skyscraper, and some people 'react' 'violently', FOR 'self-defense', then HOW, EXACTLY, is there NO 'violence' here?

This is why I consider self-defense to be a moral principle compatible with people who value peace.

Okay, 'this' WAS GRASPED and UNDERSTOOD BEFORE, but WHO CARES?

What 'you', personally, 'consider' is of NO REAL IMPORTANCE here.

How is aggression prevented in a well-run self-governing society?

Because children do NOT 'grow up' LEARNING that 'aggression' and 'aggressive behavior' is 'normal' and/or 'acceptable'. Like how 'you', adults, do, in the days when this is being written.

If you decide to fly a plane load of human beings into a city skyscraper, you live in a population of people in which at least one person is violent for a purpose other than self-defense, so the example does not apply to the hypothetical scenario of a population where absolutely everyone would only only be violent for self-defense and no other purpose.

Okay. It, now, appears that I MISCONSTRUED what you SAID, and MEANT, in 'that sentence'.

If humans would 100% always be non-violent if properly taught as you imply, then self-defense is not needed as you say.

Yes.