Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[evolution]

One of my family members sent me the following question, and about eight or nine paragraphs into writing my blabbering reply, I decided to copy my answer here.

I'm interested in your thoughts on how society would function if people were truly free to do whatever they wanted. As in, if government doesn't make any rules that services need to be available to all, would that make the inequalities and injustices better or worse? People are kinda **** and I imagine there would be groups of people deprived entirely of essential services. For example, if there are only a handful of doctors in a state qualified to treat a rare medical condition and all of them refuse to serve people who are left handed, lefties would be SOL.

What a great question!

OR, what a ridiculous question, but then, it all depends on just how one wants to LOOK AT, and SEE, 'things'.

This question might be "great" from the perspective that they were asking for your ("other's) 'views'. However, the rest after the question is just based on ridiculous assumptions.

You do not have to look to far already, when this is being written, to see groups of people deprived entirely of essential services.

But, then again, I do look at the whole picture, and not with just some very narrowed and short-sighted view of 'things'.

First, I want to say that the majority of my philosophy and the best aspects of my philosophy, in my opinion, are not political. My beautiful glorious non-political overall philosophy is centered around a deep value for spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) and a transcendence of flesh and of fear of death. My first tattoo was a stoic mediation, "Memento Mori", which is Latin for "remember you will die". I put that stoic meditation on my left arm where I see it every day.

So what?

Also, besides the fact that 'you' are obviously completely unaware of who and what 'I' AM, and how 'I' do not die, 'you' are only partly correct in that 'you' will die.

Unfortunately though 'you' also appear here to not yet be fully aware of who and what the 'you' IS, and who and what 'it' is exactly that actually fades away and does not necessarily die, in the true sense.

Political philosophy mostly only interests me to the extent that it acts as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, self-government can act as an analogue of self-discipline, and self-employment can act as analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline.

Primarily, the authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones. I suspect generally only those people who are way too attached to the material world of the flesh could care very much about the topical human politics of a sliver of time on a tiny planet in an endless sky.

One reason all of that is important to note is because it speaks to this point: I don't believe in "shoulds" or "oughts" or other moralizing. So if hypothetically I'm asked "what should the government do" or "what ought my neighbor do", I cannot answer. There are no shoulds or oughts in my philosophy, only cans and cannots; and then from ‘can’ there is only do and do not. In my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do, and only time and happenstance will tell if my answer is honest and true.

With all that said, I agree that humans are **** (and arrogant, selfish, cowardly, short-sighted, addiction-prone, and self-righteous). Man is not fit to govern man. No human on this planet is fit to wield the power of non-defensive violence, especially not of the state-sponsored variety.

What do you mean when you say that you agree that humans are four stars****?

When you say that you agree humans are arrogant, selfish, cowardly, etc, are you meaning that ALL of 'you', human beings, are born that way? Or, do you mean something else? If the latter, then will you elaborate?

Why did you jump from using the 'human' word to the 'man' word in the second sentence here? When you do this here are you implying that women are fit to govern men?

When you say that NO human on this planet is 'fit' to wield the power of non-defensive violence, then what exactly do you mean by the 'fit' word here? Also, are humans who are not on this planet 'fit' to wield the power of non-defensive violence.

If so, then why so?

But if no, then why did you write this this way?

The idea of the benevolent dictator is an impossible naive pipe dream, in my opinion. The idea of a mob of people acting as a multi-person benevolent dictator is even worse and more absurdly impossible. It may falsely sound pleasant in random specifics (e.g. "let's use non-defensive violence to end world hunger") but it is easily shown to be an absurd impossibility. Impossible imaginary ends are used to justify foolish means, the foolish means being namely non-defensive violence such as murder and rape.

If anyone's plan to 'save the world' or do charity requires committing rape, murder, or other non-defensive violence, then let me give that person fair warning they need to be ready to fight me to death.

What do you mean by "fight you to death" here?

Are you suggesting that you would literally fight to death of that human body just for your views here?

I believe not only in the principle of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but also I believe equally in the broader principle from which that one is derived: "I strongly dislike what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it."

Your beliefs here are conflicting and very contradictory.

I don't care how noble the Noble thinks the end goal of their prima nocta is, or how legal of a raping it is, I would still rather die as a William Wallace than live to become a murder, rapist, or coward--to sacrifice the one thing that is worth anything: self-discipline, self-ownership, and spiritual freedom, three different phrases that all mean the same exact thing to me.

I don’t philosophically agree, but I understand why an act utilitarian would hypothetically commit murder, rape, or slavery as a perceived lesser of two evils, such as by murdering an anti-left-hand doctor's child to coerce the doctor into saving two left-handed children against his will, presumably as a form of utilitarian slave labor. A more traditional philosophical thought experiment is to murder a fat man by pushing the fat man in front of a train to save 5 others.

Here we go, once again, down the slippery slope and spiral path to getting absolutely NOWHERE.

I would still rather fight a good-hearted act utilitarian to the death to defend the mean doctor from slavery, or to defend the fat man from murder, than violently enslave a doctor myself or violently murder a fat man myself.

WHY do some people who have gone through, so called, "philosophical studies" still use these absolutely absurd and useless "thought experiments", especially when they have already been proven to not resolve absolutely ANY thing?

But in practice such act utilitarianism never works anyway for many reasons. One is that humans are too selfish and foolish to do utilitarian calculations with any reliability.

Do you REALLY believe that you are Truly able to speak for EVERY human being like you are here?

For example, in real life, those claiming that committing murder, slavery, and rape is for the greater good in a utilitarian sense are simply mistaken, like a child failing his math homework.

Has a human being EVER said ANY thing like this?

If so, then bring them forward so that we can take a LOOK AT them, and then DISCUSS. Until then this just seems like some sort of weird fantasy of yours.

More often, they are self-serving liars who know they are playing a shell game.

To me, it appears here that you are 'trying to' argue against some thing that does not even exist and is of your OWN making up anyway.

In another example, most people’s utilitarian calculations are biased and perverted by their own denial-ridden dishonest fear of death.

And 'you', "scott", appear to be an ACTUAL PRIME EXAMPLE of one of these people here.

For instance, any accurate trolley problem needs to have a loop in it very closely because the trolley is going to get us all very soon. You can’t save any human from death ever; we are all going to die very soon. The best you can do is postpone a human's death for a little bit. I've heard many different wise people say, we all die, but we don't all really live.

You appear to super fearful of 'death'.

Also, you appear to have no conception of an 'accurate problem' here also.

You show me a self-proclaimed act utilitarian, and I'll show you a lying hypocrite who doesn't donate enough food to starving children and doesn't donate enough organs to dying patients.

You appear to be somewhat confused here as well.

By the way how many organs do you imagine there are in ONE human body?

If one is an organ donor and an honest act utilitarian, then I ask that person, "why don't you slit your organ-donating throat right now?"

And how do you feel when you ask ANOTHER human being that question?

So even though I would still oppose rape, murder, slavery and other non-defensive violence even if it was utilitarian, ten times out of ten I will bet that my way (namely peaceful non-violence) happens to be the utilitarian way anyway, at least if we limit ourselves to the practical and truly possible. To illustrate, I definitely believe that, if somehow society suddenly became much less violent (and thus by extension there was much more political localism, self-government, decentralization, and individual freedom), then there would also be less children starving to death every day and less kids being blown to pieces by drone strikes.

WHY?

If as you say, and CLAIM, human beings are to selfish and foolish, then WHY would there be less children starving to death every day and less kids being blown to pieces by drone strikes.

What you wrote above is like writing, "IF there were less children starving to death every day and less kids being blown to pieces by drone strikes, then there would be less children starving to death every day and less kids being blown to pieces by drone strikes", which is obviously just a given.

But, if as you say, and CLAIM, human beings are arrogant, selfish, cowardly, short-sighted, addiction-prone, and self-righteous, WHY and HOW could things EVERY change?

I don't think so many thousands and thousands of children are starving to death because there is too little state-sponsored violence; I think the opposite is the case. While utopia might not be possible, I believe less violence would lead to much less children starving. For example, I definitely think I myself would personally donate more to useful charities if less of my money was forcefully taken from me to fund the military industrial complex.

LOL Well that is one attempt at "justification" for NOT doing the right thing, which I have not seen previously.

The True reason why children are starving to death is because of the attempts at "justifications", which you have just shown a PRIME EXAMPLE of here.

But please don't think that me giving those hypothetical examples of the utilitarian benefits of the current violent plutocracy suddenly backing off so that we can enjoy the wonderful fruits of a much more peaceful society are meant to imply shoulds or oughts.

Nope.

Also do not expect the funding for the military industrial complex to lessen at all when that industry is being "justified", just like you are showing here in your attempts at "justifying" the military industrial complex itself.

The subtlety of you doing this you probably do not even see nor recognize yet. But it is there, obvious, and very clearly able to be seen by all.

Rather, we each have to choose for ourselves what we ourselves will do.

This is about the first sentence of yours here that truly makes any real sense.

Our freedom of spirit precedes and supersedes that of any politics or fleshy happenstance.

Very true.

I must choose for myself whether I murder, rape, and enslave others or not.

What do you mean by 'must'? That is what you just do and have been doing anyway, correct?

Or do you only choose these mis/behaviors based on some other 'thing'?

I must choose for myself whether or not I vote in favor of murder, rape, slavery, or other non-defensive violence. When the Nazis come after the Jews, I must choose for myself whether or not I break the law and hide Jews in my attic or follow the law and turn them in.

Are you under some sort of illusion that this is going to happen AGAIN?

When I am given the choice to commit murder for a Nazi to prove my loyalty, and thereby live another day, or have myself and my whole family murdered by the Nazis as punishment for my peaceful civil disobedience, I must choose whether I will murder one to save multiple including myself or die as a defiant free stubborn peaceful man. Live as a murderer or die? If that choice is presented to me, I choose death, or at least I hope to have the courage and self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) to honor the promise I have made here and bravely choose death for me and my family instead of becoming a murderer, rapist, or enslaver.

LOL It is pretty easy to make a promise in relation to what you would do, say; 80 years ago IN THE PAST.

The reality of humans isn't that they are bad at designing diets, but that they are bad at sticking to their own diets, at maintaining honest spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) in the heat of fleshy discomfort and in the face of those or that which would say, "eat the cake; break your diet and eat the cake". But sometimes it's not cake that a voice in your head that is not you says to eat; sometimes it is not a delicious drink of alcohol that a voice in your head that is not you says to drink; sometimes the voice is from an external Nazi, the politics aren't an analogue, and the cake is an innocent person you could violently murder, rape, or enslave.

LOL ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of attempting to "justify" one's WRONG behaviors.

Saying the voice in your OWN head, which told you to do 'that', was NOT "your voice" is another new attempt of "justifying" I have heard also.

I chose to say no.

But what if "another" voice says 'yes'?

HOW do 'you' decipher if that was thee I that chose that or if that was the, so called, "other" voice?

Oh, and by the way, there is a VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY way to decipher and distinguish between ALL of this.

I choose to disobey, to disobey both the Nazi with a gun to my head and the egoic voices in my own head pretending to be me.

But 'you' told us earlier that 'you' ARE selfish and foolish.

Therefore, I would NOT be to trusting of what 'you' (or the 'i') choose to disobey, or obey.

If you have ever been on a tough diet, you won't doubt me when I say it may be the latter that it takes more self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) to disobey.

LOL If 'you' (the 'i') has ALREADY labeled 'it' a "tough diet", then OBVIOUSLY 'you' will 'need' MORE 'self-discipline'.

I've never been addicted to drugs, but I imagine it too may be tougher spirtually than having a literal Nazi put a gun to your head and telling you to either murder one person or watch your whole family die as punishment for your disobedience.

You, here, appear to have a REAL hatred for some people.

Each person is stuck choosing for themselves.

If each person is 'stuck' choosing for themselves, then why did you suggest here that we 'must' choose for ourselves?

Like I suggested earlier human beings just naturally choose for themselves.

Oh, and by the way, this is only from a certain age, and when this is FULLY understood, then just about ALL of the problems/issues that you have raised here will just slowly diminish and die off anyway.

But you are still a long way from understanding this FULLY.

What will you choose?

In regards to what, EXACTLY?

You have to choose for yourself.

Now you are back to you 'have to' choose for yourself, which is just about the exact same as you 'must' choose for yourself.

What is 'it' to you?

Adult human beings just naturally choose for themselves anyway, or, adult human beings 'must' and 'have to' choose for themselves?

Because unlike political freedom, when it comes to spiritual freedom, slavery is a dishonest illusion built on denial and resentful rejection of reality. You are always 100% in control of your choices.

When you say 'you' here, are you referring to 'you', adult human beings, or, are you referring to all new born babies and all children as well?

I have faith that you can SEE what I am getting at here.

When it comes to your choices, there is no try. There is only do or do not.

That can be said for ALL behaviors as well.

But many humans resentfully reject that reality, and cling to the comfort of their own imagined slavery, as self-delusional as it may be, thinking ignorance is bliss.

And your responses to my clarifying questions will SHOW and REVEAL more about this being 'comfortably ignorant' or being Truly wide-eyed and OPEN and wanting to discover and learn more, and anew.

The so-called bliss of ignorance and dishonesty may indeed be comfortable, but insofar as it is then I wish to avoid comfort and seek out and embrace discomfort.

REALLY?

We will just have to WAIT and SEE how much ACTUAL Truth there is in this sentence of yours here.

Kierkegaard wrote, "anxiety is the dizziness of freedom". Kierkegaard didn't mean political freedom, but freedom of spirit.

Did you ask "kierkegaard" this to gain CLARITY, or are you just ASSUMING this?

I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who wrote, "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." Shaw's words help show the analogousness between mere political freedom and grander spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline). In a Shaw-like way, we can say that the spiritual freedom that is self-discipline means self-responsibility, and that is why most humans not only dread it but also desperately lie to themselves in anxious dreadful resentful denial of this most obvious truth: Spiritually, you are free whether you like it or not.

Your last two accusations about human beings were referred to "most" and "many" of them. Was this done so as to not include "your" own 'self'?

If yes, then I think, and hope, 'you' will find that this is just ANOTHER form of denial, and/or delusion, itself.

Whether one likes it or not, the obvious truth is that one's choices are 100% one's own.

Did you answer my clarifying question above about if ALL children's decisions are 100% their own as well?

Nobody can make you a murderer or a rapist; you would have to choose that yourself.

Besides the fact that it is NOT even possible to be 'a murderer' nor 'a rapist', OBVIOUSLY whatever an adult human being is because they CHOSE to do that.

Unless, OF COURSE, ANY one can prove otherwise.

Nobody can make you choose to intentionally and knowingly commit non-defensive violence (such as but not limited to murder, slavery, and rape), you would have to choose it for yourself. Whether you like it or not, the choice is 100% yours.

And, IF 'you' want to LOOK AT the REAL and ACTUAL Truth of 'things', then, as an adult human being, NO body can 'make' you choose to intentionally and knowingly commit defensive violence ALSO.

But maybe you are not yet ready to LOOK AT this, just yet.

Voltaire wrote, "man is free at the instant he wants to be."

To paraphrase yet more thinkers who are probably wiser than I am, in this case Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Emiliano Zapata, I believe liberty and non-violence are the mother, not the daughter, of order, and regardless I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

LOL "probably".

By the way, the question that "kicked this off" you never seemed to really address.

The question was:
I'm interested in your thoughts on how society would function if people were truly free to do whatever they wanted. As in, if government doesn't make any rules that services need to be available to all, would that make the inequalities and injustices better or worse?

To me, once the three roots of all evils are addressed;
1. Dishonesty.
2. Child abuse.
3. Greed, the love of money.

Then, how a society would function when people are truly FREE to do whatever they wanted, would be much better and would be continually moving towards a more Truly Peaceful and Harmonious society all of the time.

But without those three things being addressed, and especially with Dishonesty being the root of ALL evil and so if that is not completely diminished from society/the "world", then the inequalities and injustices will remain rough the same as they are now, in the days of when this is being written.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What do you mean when you say that you agree that humans are four stars****?

You must have word censoring enabled. You can disable that in the Edit Display Options section of the Board Preferences tab on the User Control Panel, by changing "Enable word censoring" from "Yes" to "No.

In child-friendly terms, I was saying that people are poop-like.

When you say that you agree humans are arrogant, selfish, cowardly, etc, are you meaning that ALL of 'you', human beings, are born that way? Or, do you mean something else? If the latter, then will you elaborate?

My bet is that humans are born that way.

Why did you jump from using the 'human' word to the 'man' word in the second sentence here? When you do this here are you implying that women are fit to govern men?

No, I wasn't implying women are fit to govern men, though I might agree they are slightly less unfit.

When you say that NO human on this planet is 'fit' to wield the power of non-defensive violence, then what exactly do you mean by the 'fit' word here?

By fit in that context, I mean that the wielder would tend to wield the power in a way that leads to better results in a rough utilitarian sense of the word better than would result if that particular power was not wielded by that wielder, the degree of fitness in this context correlating strongly with the degree of utilitarian goodness or badness resulting from the wielding.

Also, are humans who are not on this planet 'fit' to wield the power of non-defensive violence.

I don't know. I don't know anything about such non-Earthling humans. I don't know if they exist or not. I don't know if they are taller or shorter than us, or the same height on average. I'm probably not an expert in either, but I know much more about humans on Earth than I know about any living non-Earthlings, human or otherwise.

The idea of the benevolent dictator is an impossible naive pipe dream, in my opinion. The idea of a mob of people acting as a multi-person benevolent dictator is even worse and more absurdly impossible. It may falsely sound pleasant in random specifics (e.g. "let's use non-defensive violence to end world hunger") but it is easily shown to be an absurd impossibility. Impossible imaginary ends are used to justify foolish means, the foolish means being namely non-defensive violence such as murder and rape.

If anyone's plan to 'save the world' or do charity requires committing rape, murder, or other non-defensive violence, then let me give that person fair warning they need to be ready to fight me to death.

What do you mean by "fight you to death" here?

Are you suggesting that you would literally fight to death of that human body just for your views here?

Not exactly. I mean that, for example, if I saw a person attempting to rape another person, I would--according to my promise here--use as much force as necessary to stop the rapist from raping the victim and thus defend the victim from the raping even if the level of the force required was a lethal amount of force and even if there was a risk that in doing so the rapist would kill me (i.e. win the so-called "fight to the death").

I believe not only in the principle of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but also I believe equally in the broader principle from which that one is derived: "I strongly dislike what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it."

Your beliefs here are conflicting and very contradictory.

They don't seem contradictory to me. Perhaps you are interpreting them differently than I intended them, meaning there is a misunderstanding and/or miscommunication, in which I case I would ask you to doublecheck that you are exercising the Philosophical Principal of Charity when reading my words.

For example, in real life, those claiming that committing murder, slavery, and rape is for the greater good in a utilitarian sense are simply mistaken, like a child failing his math homework.

Has a human being EVER said ANY thing like this?

Yes, many times. I invite you to join these two other topic where you can discuss such things with those who (unlike me) believe such things:

- Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

- Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

LOL Well that is one attempt at "justification" for NOT doing the right thing, which I have not seen previously.

when that industry is being "justified", just like you are showing here in your attempts at "justifying" the military industrial complex itself.

LOL ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of attempting to "justify" one's WRONG behaviors.

As persuasive as repeatedly writing "LOL" and turning on caps lock is on a philosophy forum, unfortunately these all appear to be misunderstandings or miscommunications. I'm very sorry if my words weren't clear or were mistyped, but I don't believe what you indicate I believe, and I am not trying to "justify" the things you wrote that I am. Please do make sure to exercise the Philosophical Principle of Charity when reading my words; that will greatly help minimize miscommunications and misunderstandings.

Saying the voice in your OWN head, which told you to do 'that', was NOT "your voice" is another new attempt of "justifying" I have heard also.

I didn't say that the voice in my head is not my voice per se, nor was I attempting to "justify" what you say I was "justifying".

I do not mean to cast blame for who's at fault for the miscommunication and misunderstanding because I could always speak more clearly, but please do make sure to use the Philosophical Principal of Charity when reading what I write.

If you find your finger headed towards the caps lock button, and then the 'L', 'O', and 'L' keys in that order, it probably means I was misunderstood because I rarely say or write anything that would make one want to reply in all caps if my true meaning is understood. When communicating with me, that reaction is almost always indicative of a simple misunderstanding or miscommunication. So please do exercise the Philosophical Principal of Charity.

You appear to super fearful of 'death'.

You, here, appear to have a REAL hatred for some people.

I don't, but thank you for sharing those feelings that you projected onto me. It is interesting to me to learn about other people's projections.

Since none of us are mind-readers, and hopefully none of us here are gaslighters, I request that moving forward when communicating with me you don't tell me how I fell or publicly assert what I feel, what I love, or what I hate. If you want to know whether I love or hate something or someone, ask me. Then, I will say, "I love that thing" or "I hate that thing" or "I'm afraid of that thing" or "I don't feel much fear about that". Then you don't need to project those feelings on me, you can just quote verbatim me saying I feel that away.

Rather, we each have to choose for ourselves what we ourselves will do.

This is about the first sentence of yours here that truly makes any real sense.

I am glad you agree with me.

Our freedom of spirit precedes and supersedes that of any politics or fleshy happenstance.

Very true.

Awesome, another thing we agree on!

When it comes to your choices, there is no try. There is only do or do not.

That can be said for ALL behaviors as well.

I'll take that as an agreement, and I am glad we also both agree with my statement, "when it comes to your choices, there is no try. There is only do or do not."

But many humans resentfully reject that reality, and cling to the comfort of their own imagined slavery, as self-delusional as it may be, thinking ignorance is bliss.

And your responses to my clarifying questions[...]

I will take the use of the word "and" to start your reply as agreement. So this is another point on which we agree.

The so-called bliss of ignorance and dishonesty may indeed be comfortable, but insofar as it is then I wish to avoid comfort and seek out and embrace discomfort.

REALLY?

We will just have to WAIT and SEE how much ACTUAL Truth there is in this sentence of yours here.

We agree on this point too!

As I wrote in the OP, "in my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do, and only time and happenstance will tell if my answer is honest and true."

Nobody can make you choose to intentionally and knowingly commit non-defensive violence (such as but not limited to murder, slavery, and rape), you would have to choose it for yourself. Whether you like it or not, the choice is 100% yours.

And[...]

I'll take you starting your response with the word "and" to mean you are expressing agreement with that to which you are replying. So I am glad to see there is yet another thing upon which we can so quickly agree.

I am happy we agree on so much. Thank you for your reply!

[evolution]

What do you mean when you say that you agree that humans are four stars****?

You must have word censoring enabled. You can disable that in the Edit Display Options section of the Board Preferences tab on the User Control Panel, by changing "Enable word censoring" from "Yes" to "No.

In child-friendly terms, I was saying that people are poop-like.

When you say that you agree humans are arrogant, selfish, cowardly, etc, are you meaning that ALL of 'you', human beings, are born that way? Or, do you mean something else? If the latter, then will you elaborate?

My bet is that humans are born that way.

Why did you jump from using the 'human' word to the 'man' word in the second sentence here? When you do this here are you implying that women are fit to govern men?

No, I wasn't implying women are fit to govern men, though I might agree they are slightly less unfit.

When you say that NO human on this planet is 'fit' to wield the power of non-defensive violence, then what exactly do you mean by the 'fit' word here?

By fit in that context, I mean that the wielder would tend to wield the power in a way that leads to better results in a rough utilitarian sense of the word better than would result if that particular power was not wielded by that wielder, the degree of fitness in this context correlating strongly with the degree of utilitarian goodness or badness resulting from the wielding.

Also, are humans who are not on this planet 'fit' to wield the power of non-defensive violence.

I don't know. I don't know anything about such non-Earthling humans. I don't know if they exist or not. I don't know if they are taller or shorter than us, or the same height on average. I'm probably not an expert in either, but I know much more about humans on Earth than I know about any living non-Earthlings, human or otherwise.

The idea of the benevolent dictator is an impossible naive pipe dream, in my opinion. The idea of a mob of people acting as a multi-person benevolent dictator is even worse and more absurdly impossible. It may falsely sound pleasant in random specifics (e.g. "let's use non-defensive violence to end world hunger") but it is easily shown to be an absurd impossibility. Impossible imaginary ends are used to justify foolish means, the foolish means being namely non-defensive violence such as murder and rape.

If anyone's plan to 'save the world' or do charity requires committing rape, murder, or other non-defensive violence, then let me give that person fair warning they need to be ready to fight me to death.

What do you mean by "fight you to death" here?

Are you suggesting that you would literally fight to death of that human body just for your views here?

Not exactly. I mean that, for example, if I saw a person attempting to rape another person, I would--according to my promise here--use as much force as necessary to stop the rapist from raping the victim and thus defend the victim from the raping even if the level of the force required was a lethal amount of force and even if there was a risk that in doing so the rapist would kill me (i.e. win the so-called "fight to the death").

I believe not only in the principle of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but also I believe equally in the broader principle from which that one is derived: "I strongly dislike what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it."

Your beliefs here are conflicting and very contradictory.

They don't seem contradictory to me. Perhaps you are interpreting them differently than I intended them, meaning there is a misunderstanding and/or miscommunication, in which I case I would ask you to doublecheck that you are exercising the Philosophical Principal of Charity when reading my words.

For example, in real life, those claiming that committing murder, slavery, and rape is for the greater good in a utilitarian sense are simply mistaken, like a child failing his math homework.

Has a human being EVER said ANY thing like this?

Yes, many times. I invite you to join these two other topic where you can discuss such things with those who (unlike me) believe such things:

- Intentional non-defensive killing - Do you always oppose it?

- Murder - Do you Always Oppose It?

LOL Well that is one attempt at "justification" for NOT doing the right thing, which I have not seen previously.

when that industry is being "justified", just like you are showing here in your attempts at "justifying" the military industrial complex itself.

LOL ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of attempting to "justify" one's WRONG behaviors.

As persuasive as repeatedly writing "LOL" and turning on caps lock is on a philosophy forum, unfortunately these all appear to be misunderstandings or miscommunications. I'm very sorry if my words weren't clear or were mistyped, but I don't believe what you indicate I believe, and I am not trying to "justify" the things you wrote that I am. Please do make sure to exercise the Philosophical Principle of Charity when reading my words; that will greatly help minimize miscommunications and misunderstandings.

Saying the voice in your OWN head, which told you to do 'that', was NOT "your voice" is another new attempt of "justifying" I have heard also.

I didn't say that the voice in my head is not my voice per se, nor was I attempting to "justify" what you say I was "justifying".

I do not mean to cast blame for who's at fault for the miscommunication and misunderstanding because I could always speak more clearly, but please do make sure to use the Philosophical Principal of Charity when reading what I write.

If you find your finger headed towards the caps lock button, and then the 'L', 'O', and 'L' keys in that order, it probably means I was misunderstood because I rarely say or write anything that would make one want to reply in all caps if my true meaning is understood. When communicating with me, that reaction is almost always indicative of a simple misunderstanding or miscommunication. So Philosophical Principal of Charity

You appear to super fearful of 'death'.

You, here, appear to have a REAL hatred for some people.

I don't, but thank you for sharing those feelings that you projected onto me. It is interesting to me to learn about other people's projections.

Since none of us are mind-readers, and hopefully none of us here are gaslighters, I request that moving forward when communicating with me you don't tell me how I fell or publicly assert what I feel, what I love, or what I hate. If you want to know whether I love or hate something or someone, ask me. Then, I will say, "I love that thing" or "I hate that thing" or "I'm afraid of that thing" or "I don't feel much fear about that". Then you don't need to project those feelings on me, you can just quote verbatim me saying I feel that away.

Rather, we each have to choose for ourselves what we ourselves will do.

This is about the first sentence of yours here that truly makes any real sense.

I am glad you agree with me.

Our freedom of spirit precedes and supersedes that of any politics or fleshy happenstance.

Very true.

Awesome, another thing we agree on!

When it comes to your choices, there is no try. There is only do or do not.

That can be said for ALL behaviors as well.

I'll take that as an agreement, and I am glad we also both agree with my statement, "when it comes to your choices, there is no try. There is only do or do not."

But many humans resentfully reject that reality, and cling to the comfort of their own imagined slavery, as self-delusional as it may be, thinking ignorance is bliss.

And your responses to my clarifying questions[...]

I will take the use of the word "and" to start your reply as agreement. So this is another point on which we agree.

The so-called bliss of ignorance and dishonesty may indeed be comfortable, but insofar as it is then I wish to avoid comfort and seek out and embrace discomfort.

REALLY?

We will just have to WAIT and SEE how much ACTUAL Truth there is in this sentence of yours here.

We agree on this point too!

As I wrote in the OP, "in my philosophy, there is no ought, no should, and no try. I can tell you what I will or would do, and only time and happenstance will tell if my answer is honest and true."

Nobody can make you choose to intentionally and knowingly commit non-defensive violence (such as but not limited to murder, slavery, and rape), you would have to choose it for yourself. Whether you like it or not, the choice is 100% yours.

And[...]

I'll take you starting your response with the word "and" to mean you are expressing agreement with that to which you are replying. So I am glad to see there is yet another thing upon which we can so quickly agree.

I am happy we agree on so much. Thank you for your reply!

I thank you profusely for trying to answer my clarifying questions. This is rarely done and so is very refreshing to observe and see when it is done. However, you appear to have misconstrued a great deal of my words. I suggest seeking clarification before making the assumptions that you have. That way you would not be so wrong as you were, and as so wrong as often as you were. Or, something you may comprehend and understand much easier, please do make sure to exercise the, so called, "philosophical principal of charity".

You have also shown absolutely zero interest in what I was actually communicating and meaning. Therefore, I will not reply individually to your responses here.

[evolution]

The OP appears to me to be talking about something fairly closely related to a combination of Existentialism and individual liberty in the sense that the Libertarians envision it.

It also mentions the benefits of non-violence a lot. I have to say I always find that kind of thing a bit empty, a bit like the often repeated complaint that if only people would stop fighting there would be no more wars. That's obviously true, but not necessarily much help in actually achieving that goal. People have cried "stop fighting everybody!" in the past without necessarily having the desired effect. I prefer proposals as to how people might be motivated to behave in ways that we might see as desirable, given existing human nature, not simply stating how much we wish people were different than how they currently are.

What IS "given existing human nature", EXACTLY?

And, if you EVER Honestly answer this CLARIFYING question posed to 'you', then HOW, EXACTLY, do 'you' KNOW this?

To me, it is Nature, Itself, WHY, not to far in the future from when this is being written, human beings LEARN and KNOW how to live in a Truly peaceful and harmonious "world", and so start living this way.

So, you appear to MUST HAVE some COMPLETELY WRONG conception of "existing human nature".

If the conversation is about the general theme of how to make a better world, I always tend to prefer potentially actionable proposals rather than general aspirations as to how the whole of human nature should somehow change.

Would you like to discuss WITH ME what the ACTUAL potentially actionable proposals ARE, EXACTLY, which CAN and WILL create a much better Life for EVERY one?

If no, then WHY NOT?

To me that means suggestions as to what we would do if we were in some position of influence, and how we might try to use that influence, with what goals in mind.

The goal is to find what 'it' is, that COULD create a much better "world" for EVERY one.

EVERY one has influence over each "other".

Using that influence is just done by guiding "others" in a 'heuristic' approach, that is; just teaching the student how to find answers by themselves.

[Steve3007]

Would you like to discuss WITH ME what the ACTUAL potentially actionable proposals ARE, EXACTLY, which CAN and WILL create a much better Life for EVERY one?

Thank you for the offer, but no thanks.

If no, then WHY NOT?

Because in past conversations with you I've established that your conversational style doesn't interest me. If other people find it interesting that's good, but it's not to my taste.

[evolution]

Would you like to discuss WITH ME what the ACTUAL potentially actionable proposals ARE, EXACTLY, which CAN and WILL create a much better Life for EVERY one?

Thank you for the offer, but no thanks.

If no, then WHY NOT?

Because in past conversations with you I've established that your conversational style doesn't interest me. If other people find it interesting that's good, but it's not to my taste.

Is this because or partly because I ask you to many clarifying questions, which you are incapable of answering?

Also, you ask for answers, which some one says they could give, but just because you are not interested in the conversational style of that one, you would prefer to live, and maybe also die, NEVER discovering what those ACTUAL answers ARE, correct?

[Steve3007]

Is this because or partly because I ask you to many clarifying questions, which you are incapable of answering?

No.

Also, you ask for answers, which some one says they could give, but just because you are not interested in the conversational style of that one, you would prefer to live, and maybe also die, NEVER discovering what those ACTUAL answers ARE, correct?

The conversational style is a barrier to effective communication. You've had the same issue with a lot of other posters over a long period of time, posting both as "creation" and as "evolution". Some posters, including me, have made suggestions to you as to how you could communicate more effectively. Terrapin Station in particular has gone to huge lengths, over a long period of time, showing an almost unbelievable amount of patience, to try to help you with this. Yet the style of your posts hasn't changed significantly. I conclude from this that you're not interested in taking on board any of that advice and help. That's fine. You're free to do as you please. But one consequence is that I'm not interesting in discussions with you because I know from past experience that they will be fruitless. There are plenty of other posters to try your shtick on.

I'm not going to continue this thread of conversation beyond this point because it's too far off topic.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I agree that the above threads of conversation have gone off-topic. So I have split them off into the off-topic section.

[evolution]

Is this because or partly because I ask you to many clarifying questions, which you are incapable of answering?

No.

Also, you ask for answers, which some one says they could give, but just because you are not interested in the conversational style of that one, you would prefer to live, and maybe also die, NEVER discovering what those ACTUAL answers ARE, correct?

The conversational style is a barrier to effective communication. You've had the same issue with a lot of other posters over a long period of time, posting both as "creation" and as "evolution". Some posters, including me, have made suggestions to you as to how you could communicate more effectively. Terrapin Station in particular has gone to huge lengths, over a long period of time, showing an almost unbelievable amount of patience, to try to help you with this.

Have you FORGOTTEN that the ACTUAL way that 'you', human beings, have been communicating with each other, for thousands upon thousands of years now, hast NOT gotten you ANYWHERE closer to answering/resolving the "age old philosophical questions", which you are OBVIOUSLY still DEBATING over with each other now, when this is being written?

Yet the style of your posts hasn't changed significantly.

And, for what 'it' is that I have set out to achieve, my style probably will NOT change that much at all.

Either 'you', adult human beings, will learn to LOOK AT, VIEW, and SEE 'things' differently, or, 'you' will REMAIN LOOKING AT and SEEING 'things' the way 'you' do now, when this is being written, and have been for the past many thousands of years.

In other words, 'you' will learn to CHANGE and thus SEE 'things' MUCH DIFFERENTLY, or 'you' will just REMAIN THE SAME.

And, I am in NO rush as I, literally, have "ALL the time in the world", as some say.

I conclude from this that you're not interested in taking on board any of that advice and help. That's fine. You're free to do as you please. But one consequence is that I'm not interesting in discussions with you because I know from past experience that they will be fruitless. There are plenty of other posters to try your shtick on.

I'm not going to continue this thread of conversation beyond this point because it's too far off topic.

"Man is OBVIOUSLY NOT fit to govern "other" man" is MORE ON TOPIC than "man" in the days of when this is being written was still NOT YET RECOGNIZED.

In fact, the writing style of human beings, in the days of when this was being written, was still, by some human beings, OBVIOUSLY male gendered central and dominant, even after thousands of years of this OBVIOUSLY WRONG writing style.

Now, I totally agree that I have NOT been interested in taking on board ANY of that, so called, "advice and help". But this is because that, so called, "advice and help" was only getting me to speak and write the EXACT SAME WRONG WAY, about the EXACT SAME WRONG 'things', that 'you', adult human beings do, in the days of when this is being written.

You can keep those LOOKING and WRITING from those WRONG perspective and ways. But, do NOT expect 'me' to follow 'you', adult human beings.

REMEMBER, that is 'you' who is LOOKING FOR answers. NOT 'me'.

The ONLY answer I am LOOKING FOR is the answer to HOW to get 'you', adult human beings, to become Truly OPEN and CURIOUS beings, once more?

Just how CLOSED 'you' REALLY ARE can be CLEARLY SEEN in how 'you' will NOT even speak NOR listen to "another" just because of their communication style. Which just SHOWS how Truly prejudiced and CLOSED human being 'you' have REALLY become.

Deep down 'you' KNOW you are WRONG in regards to what I wanted to discuss with you previously, but which you REFUSE to do. This is the reason reason WHY you will NOT discuss that issue.

[evolution]

I agree that the above threads of conversation have gone off-topic. So I have split them off into the off-topic section.

You were asked:
I'm interested in your thoughts on how society would function if people were truly free to do whatever they wanted.

And what can be CLEARLY SEEN from the outset of YOUR VIEWS is that you NEVER actually got around to providing YOUR THOUGHTS on "how society WOULD function if people were truly free to do whatever they wanted". Although you did have a LOT to say there.

You almost instantly went OFF TOPIC, as well as just responded by re-repeating a LOT of the same things.

My reply to YOUR POST was ON TOPIC but because 'you' have the POWER you can move posts around and MANIPULATE what is SEEN and NOT SEEN.

You OBVIOUSLY did NOT like what I BROUGHT TO LIGHT in that thread, so you REMOVED my post completely from that thread. That way the OBVIOUSLY faulty thinking and reasoning that you REVEALED cannot now be SHOWN to "others" in that thread.

[evolution]

The conversational style is a barrier to effective communication. You've had the same issue with a lot of other posters over a long period of time, posting both as "creation" and as "evolution". Some posters, including me, have made suggestions to you as to how you could communicate more effectively.

I do NOT recall your suggestions. So, will you care to elaborate on what those, alleged, suggestions to how I could communicate more effectively were?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If you do not, then your True intentions start becoming MORE OBVIOUS.