Why do men like to kill men?

[RCSaunders]

Let me add a thought to my last post to you.

Have you read the book or seen the movie -- Lord of the Flies?

What it shows is why we have chosen security under law instead of freedom.

Regards
DL

Who is "WE?" If you are one of the kind of people portrayed in, Lord of the Flies, you probably do seek security and guarantees. Free individuals never think in terms of some collectivist we, and neither seek or want you or anyone else to supply them either freedom or security.

[RCSaunders]

Some of us are well-skilled at self-relyin'. I get that someone who isn't might feel leashed to society. Fortunately, it's never too late to learn... 🏕

You are SO right, Henry. I have never understood those who feel incompetent to live their lives without depending on others. If someone is so useless they cannot keep themselves alive, how can they be of any use to anyone else? They don't deserve the society of others, because they can only be parasites.

[henry quirk]

Some of us are well-skilled at self-relyin'. I get that someone who isn't might feel leashed to society. Fortunately, it's never too late to learn... 🏕

You are SO right, Henry. I have never understood those who feel incompetent to live their lives without depending on others. If someone is so useless they cannot keep themselves alive, how can they be of any use to anyone else? They don't deserve the society of others, because they can only be parasites.

They've been taught to be dependent, taught to be cogs.

The support of that sonuvabitch, Sanders, is illustrative of that. Generations educated out of self-sufficiency solely to leash 'em.

[RCSaunders]

But there are men for whom war itself is the purpose of their life, including mercenaries, professional military, and the entire military arms industry, who will do anything to ensure there is perpetual war.

They're makin' money by way of war, not makin' war for war's sake.

Well that certainly is one motive, but I personally know individuals that just love war, for its own sake. To them, it is their whole reason for living. There is a magazine, Soldier of Fortune, described here, that caters to them.

They certainly aren't your every day neighbor, but they exist. Whenever one of these manages to gain political power, they will use it to foment war. Pol Pot is one example. The excuse for war is always some form of idealism, almost always political (but sometimes religious). It is the origin of the expresion, "war is the health of the state."

[RCSaunders]

They've been taught to be dependent, taught to be cogs.

The support of that sonuvabitch, Sanders, is illustrative of that. Generations educated out of self-sufficiency solely to leash 'em.

That's two in a row we totally agree on, Henry. Have to do something about that.

[RCSaunders]

I have paid a high price for doing my duty to try to have my government step up to it's duty, so yes, I am touchy on this issue.

I fought the law and the law won, but they cheated.

I'm sorry for that experience, but not surprised. The law itself is a, "cheat," because it is an instrument of government. Government and its laws are like vicious animals which are best dealt with by evading them. They cannot be dealt with rationally, because like any wild animal, it is only interested in it's own preservation.

[henry quirk]

But there are men for whom war itself is the purpose of their life, including mercenaries, professional military, and the entire military arms industry, who will do anything to ensure there is perpetual war.

They're makin' money by way of war, not makin' war for war's sake.

Well that certainly is one motive, but I personally know individuals that just love war, for its own sake. To them, it is their whole reason for living. There is a magazine, Soldier of Fortune, described here, that caters to them.

They certainly aren't your every day neighbor, but they exist. Whenever one of these manages to gain political power, they will use it to foment war. Pol Pot is one example. The excuse for war is always some form of idealism, almost always political (but sometimes religious). It is the origin of the expresion, "war is the health of the state."

Seems to me: some folks are in love with the idea of war. They've never fought in one, but they sure as hell romanticize it. Others, like Pol Pot, saw/see war as -- as I say -- a means, a method, not an end. And, yeah, there are some deviants who view war/violence as an end, but they don't define the baseline.

A man, any man, is, given good reason, capable of extreme violence, but that violence is almost always a means, a method.

We can't let the nutjobs define us; we ought to be definin' them.

#

Have to do something about that.

About Sanders: keep him outta the Big Chair (and get the commies out of Congress and state houses). About the miseducated generations: hope they grow up or die young.

[henry quirk]

I have paid a high price for doing my duty to try to have my government step up to it's duty, so yes, I am touchy on this issue.

I fought the law and the law won, but they cheated.

I'm sorry for that experience, but not surprised. The law itself is a, "cheat," because it is an instrument of government. Government and its laws are like vicious animals which are best dealt with by evading them. They cannot be dealt with rationally, because like any wild animal, it is only interested in it's own preservation.

[commonsense]

If you cannot explain our history, then you cannot discount our love of violence, killing and war.

Not true.

I can discount lots of discountable motivators, one at a time, but the task would be too tedious to bear.

I will, however, give it a go by trying to discount one randomly chosen reason for war. Let’s take a look at greed, for example.

Again, there would have to be at least two parties involved. One has something that the other one covets, something that appeals to the former’s sense of greed. An offer is made for purchase. The offer is rejected. Counter offers are made and dismissed.

The greed of the first party is so strong that threats begin to fill the air. The second party’s fear of the first is so great that counter threats begin to fly back and forth.

The threats escalate and a minor incident becomes the cause of incremental acts of aggression. A war is born.

So, I think it turns out that greed is not discountable after all. In fact, greed might be what explains all wars throughout the centuries. Or greed might be one of many factors that ignite war. Even jealousy or envy.

But not love.

+ 1

You triggered this memory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTBx-hHf4BE

You make a good point in blaming our selfish gene. It is the root of war.

It defaults to cooperation in us, but the conditions you put, imposed by our overly greedy leadership, both political and religious, has us ignore our better instincts that would have us trade instead of kill.

Regards
DL

Yes

[Immanuel Can]

We all have a free will, but not freedom.

You are always free to break the rules and live with the consequences. Vigilantes do just that.

Are you, or can you be free of society? As Socrates said, who would make your shoes. Meaning of course that we are tribal and all rely on each other.

If you think you have the freedom to live on your own, tell us how long you would last in the bush on your own.

Freedom, IMO, should be written as freedumb, just to show us how foolish of an idea it is.

Are you denying that you rely on others?

Not relevant. One can be free, and have relationships with others. In fact, if one has no relationships, one is not so much free as in a vacuum.

I think your problem is that you think that having rules means there isn't freedom. In point of fact, rules and freedom have a coordinated relationship.

Look at a football team. There are rules, boundaries, roles, specified goals, all kinds of things. But would it be anyone's position that there's no freedom in football? Of course there is. There's immense opportunity for personal creativity and achievement. And ironically, without rules, goals, etc. there would be neither creativity nor any achievement at all. There would be just a bunch of individuals, standing in an empty field, with nothing to do.

Life is the same. There are rules and givens...there is a "game" to be played, the game of creating a fulfilling and meaningful life. And the game just can't be played any old way...there are life patters worth having (say, the lives of great scientists, philanthropists, admired heroes, or even financiers, if you like), and also some life patterns that are not worth creating for oneself (prisoner, addict, psychopath, street urchin, lone-wolf, prostitute or chattel slave). The challenge is to exercise one's own freedom to make the best of one's life, within the social context itself.

So society and freedom are not enemies. One does not eliminate the other. In fact, human beings are meant to live in societies, and cannot be fulfilled in the absence of any other people. The freedom in life comes in negotiating one's way amid the complex "givens," (such as rules, the wishes of others, limitations of resources, and so on) while taking advantage of one's chances for creativity (opportunities, options, choices, alternatives, relationships, personal objectives and potential).

The free "player" plays the game with skill, ingenuity, cleverness and success. But this is only possible within the context of the social world and it's realities.

[commonsense]

Seems to me: some folks are in love with the idea of war. They've never fought in one, but they sure as hell romanticize it. Others, like Pol Pot, saw/see war as -- as I say -- a means, a method, not an end. And, yeah, there are some deviants who view war/violence as an end, but they don't define the baseline.

A man, any man, is, given good reason, capable of extreme violence, but that violence is almost always a means, a method.

We can't let the nutjobs define us; we ought to be definin' them.

Absotively.

[Greatest I am]

We all have a free will, but not freedom.

Speak for yourself. At this very moment there are thousands of individuals living their lives exactly as they choose.

Sure but not free from what the tribe provides.

Give even one example of such a person.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

But there are men for whom war itself is the purpose of their life, including mercenaries, professional military, and the entire military arms industry, who will do anything to ensure there is perpetual war.

They're makin' money by way of war, not makin' war for war's sake.


If you think you have the freedom to live on your own, tell us how long you would last in the bush on your own.

Some of us are well-skilled at self-relyin'. I get that someone who isn't might feel leashed to society. Fortunately, it's never too late to learn... 🏕

Show even one example of a free man or woman that does not rely in some part to the tribe.

Even the recluse in the hills has to use society for his bullets or arrows or shoes.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

Have you read the book or seen the movie -- Lord of the Flies?

What it shows is why we have chosen security under law instead of freedom.

Oh, I read it.

In the story, Ralph (and, to some extent, Piggy) tried to organize society, so that freedom could be maximized. The advocates of unrestricted "freedom" ended up killing Piggy and trying to kill Ralph, the hero of the story.

A few rules for the common good didn't hurt freedom at all, but rather ensured that what freedoms remained took place within a coordinated framework that stood to serve the good of all. It was the little savages who didn't pay attention to that, and wanted freedom without any rules, who ended up creating the disaster that the island became. What Ralph was trying to advocate was not suffocating to freedom, but rather the maximization and direction of freedom into purposes advantageous to all. He was trying to create a minimal level of beneficial civilization, not to impose any tyrannical repression.

Again, you see in that story how a limited set of intelligent rules can serve freedom. Of course, too many rules can suffocate freedom. And of course, there are always debates about how many rules one should have, and about what. But the point of the story is that absence of rules is not freedom, but a things that used to be called "anomie," meaning "lawlessness," the absence of any markers, guides, landmarks, benchmarks for achievement, values, morals or goals. And "anomie" is a state that all human beings actually turn out to hate and fear, even if they claim to want it at first. You can see this because when faced with it they often flee into the hands of dictators (interbellum Germany was a really good example of this).

It seems that human beings will endure tyranny rather than anomie. Absolute lawlessness is not freedom. It's terror.

[Greatest I am]

Let me add a thought to my last post to you.

Have you read the book or seen the movie -- Lord of the Flies?

What it shows is why we have chosen security under law instead of freedom.

Regards
DL

Who is "WE?" If you are one of the kind of people portrayed in, Lord of the Flies, you probably do seek security and guarantees. Free individuals never think in terms of some collectivist we, and neither seek or want you or anyone else to supply them either freedom or security.

They may not want it, but they have to seek it.

I will wait for you to show any man who is completely free.

Regards
DL