Why do men like to kill men?

[Greatest I am]

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.

I cannot agree. Most laws are logical and reasonable and meant to protect and serve us.

It is the duty of every citizen to fight the few poor laws that we live under that they see as not serving us well.

There are nowhere near as many Vigilantes as there used to be, because most laws have evolved to a better form since we have taken the more immoral faith based laws out of our systems.

I am sure you have noted how secular law seeks equality for all, while the mainstream garbage religions preach homophobia and misogyny and inequality.

Regards
DL

[RCSaunders]

Sure but not free from what the tribe provides.

Give even one example of such a person.

Look GIA, no one has to prove to a tribalist they don't need the tribe. If you believe that, refuse to help the independent individualists and see who lasts the longest.

What seems to be beyond you is that self-sufficient productive individuals do not need the parasitic tribe and could get along perfectly well without them, but the parasitic tribe would die without the productive individuals.

Your question is totally disingenuous. It's like asking, "give me one example of someone who could live in a world without water." The masses of ignorant non-productive are here, and are supported by the productive individuals. Of course no one can live without them short killing them all, but the productive certainly could live better without them.

The productive need the leaches of society the same way doctors need the sick and the police need criminals. Which are you?

[Greatest I am]

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.

Correct.

He plays by the rules just as you have to play by the collectives rules and laws and are not free to go against those rules unless you wish to break them and face the consequences.

You can look for all the analogies you want, but you cannot get away from the fact that we all answer to the collective and need it for survival.

I am still waiting for the example you suggested exists above.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Sure but not free from what the tribe provides.

Give even one example of such a person.

Look GIA, no one has to prove to a tribalist they don't need the tribe. If you believe that, refuse to help the independent individualists and see who lasts the longest.

What seems to be beyond you is that self-sufficient productive individuals do not need the parasitic tribe and could get along perfectly well without them, but the parasitic tribe would die without the productive individuals.

Your question is totally disingenuous. It's like asking, "give me one example of someone who could live in a world without water." The masses of ignorant non-productive are here, and are supported by the productive individuals. Of course no one can live without them short killing them all, but the productive certainly could live better without them.

The productive need the leaches of society the same way doctors need the sick and the police need criminals. Which are you?

All irrelevant when you have no example of a self-sufficient productive individuals.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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.

You are bastardizing the language to try to win a cheep point.

You have freedom as having degrees. One is either free or not.

The degree you posit has us moving from freedom, which we lose, to liberty.

Your own country has a Statue of Liberty. Not a statue of freedom.

Regards
DL

[RCSaunders]

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.

I'm a-political so won't be participating in the great American auction of stolen goods called an election. I don't think there is a solution to the rampant ignorance that makes a Sanders possible or the brainwashing of American young. If you could find a way to make "government child day prisons" (public schools) vanish, that might do it. I'm afraid most people will not wake up until the government runs out of victims to steal from and runs out of other people's money to support the unproductive, "entitled," riffraff.

[Nick_A]

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

We are all slaves. The intelligent person will choose which form of slavery is the most profitable. The devil gave Jesus the choice of serving him and help in ruling the world or to serve the Father in universal purpose. Jesus chose serving the father which is insanity for modern secular man..

The potential value of America is by providing the freedom to search for meaning free from government control. It was nice idea but the government and its demand for dominance and control must be served.

[Greatest I am]

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

We are all slaves. The intelligent person will choose which form of slavery is the most profitable. The devil gave Jesus the choice of serving him and help in ruling the world or to serve the Father in universal purpose. Jesus chose serving the father which is insanity for modern secular man..

The potential value of America is by providing the freedom to search for meaning free from government control. It was nice idea but the government and its demand for dominance and control must be served.

Yep. House slaves are better fed than field slaves.

If the democratic governments ever overthrow our oligarch owners, then and only then can liberty be real.

We have to rid ourselves of the one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

[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.


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

You're wrong. I could spend the ten pages of this thread showin' you how wrong you are, but -- like Pete over in his morality thread -- you'd ignore and dismiss my evidences (without actually refutin' 'em). So, no, I decline to spar. Continue bein' wrong, guy: ain't no skin offa my nose.

[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

You're wrong. I could spend the ten pages of this thread showin' you how wrong you are, but -- like Pete over in his morality thread -- you'd ignore and dismiss my evidences (without actually refutin' 'em). So, no, I decline to spar. Continue bein' wrong, guy: ain't no skin offa my nose.

Thanks for the childish loser reply.

Are you done patting yourself on the back, while running away?

You foolishly argue to win, while I intelligently argue to lose. If you mature, you will understand why.

Like you, I do not have the time to waste explaining myself.

Regards
DL

[henry quirk]

[RCSaunders]

All irrelevant when you have no example of a self-sufficient productive individuals.

By self-sufficient I mean anyone who does not need you. So, if you need examples, pick anyone who works and supports himself and his family.

There is a difference between needing people, and trading with people. Lice need people, because produce nothing of value in exchange. To trade with someone else you have to produce something of value to trade with. The self-sufficient individual does not need others, he trades with them for their mutual advantage.

If you really do not think anyone is capable of living entirely on their own, their are survival schools that would be glad to teach you how to survive on your own. If you cannot survive on your own, then you are worthless to any society.

[Nick_A]

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

We are all slaves. The intelligent person will choose which form of slavery is the most profitable. The devil gave Jesus the choice of serving him and help in ruling the world or to serve the Father in universal purpose. Jesus chose serving the father which is insanity for modern secular man..

The potential value of America is by providing the freedom to search for meaning free from government control. It was nice idea but the government and its demand for dominance and control must be served.

Yep. House slaves are better fed than field slaves.

If the democratic governments ever overthrow our oligarch owners, then and only then can liberty be real.

We have to rid ourselves of the one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

“Capitalism has brought about the emancipation of collective humanity with respect to nature. But this collective humanity has itself taken on with respect to the individual the oppressive function formerly exercised by nature.” Simone Weil

For liberty to sustain itself it needs to value both the nuclear family nd the effect of grace on human being. This is why the left is concerned with the destruction of both so that government control becomes dominant.

Capitalism is a tool humanity can use for solving problems relating to nature. However human nature being what it is eventually manipulates it for pragmatic reasons and sacrifices its purpose. It sells itself for thirty pieces of silver. Is it worth it?

That is why there are no more Americans. All you read of are the struggle between collectives. Loosing the value of the nuclear family and the benefits of grace on human being, what else can be expected but the devolutionary struggle between collectives?

[henry quirk]

All irrelevant when you have no example of a self-sufficient productive individuals.

By self-sufficient I mean anyone who does not need you. So, if you need examples, pick anyone who works and supports himself and his family.

There is a difference between needing people, and trading with people. Lice need people, because produce nothing of value in exchange. To trade with someone else you have to produce something of value to trade with. The self-sufficient individual does not need others, he trades with them for their mutual advantage.

If you really do not think anyone is capable of living entirely on their own, their are survival schools that would be glad to teach you how to survive on your own. If you cannot survive on your own, then you are worthless to any society.

It's your time to waste, RC, but wastin' it you are.

GIA is certain man wars for war's sake, and that all men are slaves. He will not move. Let him wallow.

[Greatest I am]

All irrelevant when you have no example of a self-sufficient productive individuals.

By self-sufficient I mean anyone who does not need you. So, if you need examples, pick anyone who works and supports himself and his family.

There is a difference between needing people, and trading with people. Lice need people, because produce nothing of value in exchange. To trade with someone else you have to produce something of value to trade with. The self-sufficient individual does not need others, he trades with them for their mutual advantage.

If you really do not think anyone is capable of living entirely on their own, their are survival schools that would be glad to teach you how to survive on your own. If you cannot survive on your own, then you are worthless to any society.

IOW, there are no self sufficient people.

That is what I said. There are no free people and no human has freedom.

Regards
DL