The Future of Government

[BigMike]

The definition that they use will be implicit in the input variables that they seek to control as well as the resulting output variables of their experimental test. At that point, we can check if these variables truly measure what they are purported to measure. Asking for an experimental test report therefore solves all these problems. In the end, a definition is just a word salad. It is much more interesting to look at what they actually did in a lab setting.

Except they will use words, in explaining what they did, and all words carry with them a 'definition', and, well according to you anyway, a definition is just a so-called 'word salad'.

So, where do you suggest one starts, exactly, if words, and thus definitions, are just 'salad', to you?

Definitions are practically usable when they are expressed in a formal language and are machine readable. This guarantees that they have a unique reading:

2.1.4: Unique Readability

The way we defined formulas guarantees that every formula has a unique reading, i.e., there is essentially only one way of constructing it according to our formation rules for formulas and only one way of “interpreting” it. If this were not so, we would have ambiguous formulas, i.e., formulas that have more than one reading or interpretation—and that is clearly something we want to avoid.

Definitions in natural language are just commentary. They are merely meant to elucidate a particular concept for teaching purposes, but are not effectively actionable, and certainly not guaranteed to be unambiguous.

https://www.directimpactsolutions.com/e ... -comments/

Why are most comments bad?

Most comments are bad because developers can’t realistically maintain them. Over time, comments can become inaccurate and misleading, which is worse than not having comments.

Even though natural language is certainly the best format for teaching purposes, it is not a good carrier for precise and unambiguous definitions. The scientific researchers may produce explanations that include definitions, but these things cannot overrule the actual data and machine configurations used and obtained from their experimental test setup.

Alright, it sounds like we’re veering into the territory of formal definitions, language precision, and experimental clarity here. Let’s connect this back to the crux of the argument on free will and conservation laws.

You’re correct that formal language can ensure precision, especially in scientific contexts where ambiguity undermines reproducibility. But when it comes to foundational principles like conservation laws, this isn’t simply a matter of ambiguous or interpretative language. Conservation laws themselves *are* formalized in physics—expressed mathematically in ways that leave little room for alternative interpretations. These laws are confirmed by a mountain of consistent data across various contexts, essentially machine-readable as mathematical statements that hold up under all testing conditions.

What we’re discussing, then, isn’t an issue of needing a new formalism to “redefine” conservation laws or free will but rather a need for experimental evidence that would violate these well-established laws. A scientific claim that “free will” operates outside these principles would, in fact, need to produce data where energy or momentum changes occur without a physical source. This isn’t about finding a clearer way to define free will or conservation in formal language but about confronting physical reality as it’s measured and observed.

If there’s no reproducible evidence of free will operating independently of deterministic physical processes, the burden remains on those proposing such an influence to demonstrate it within the frameworks that already govern scientific inquiry.

[BigMike]

To argue for a new form of governance that diverges from traditional systems like democracy, autocracy, or communism, we must first ground it in a scientific understanding of human behavior—rooted in our genetic evolution, psychological needs, and the deterministic principles governing the mind and society.

Darwinian Origins of Human Behavior: Our genetic build has been sculpted over millions of years by Darwinian natural selection, which fundamentally centers on survival and adaptation. Traits that improved our ancestors' survival odds—cooperation, competition, empathy, aggression, intelligence—were naturally selected. These traits are neither inherently good nor bad; they are responses to environmental demands, embedded in us through a long evolutionary history. Recognizing this evolutionary heritage, any governance system must acknowledge the inherent predispositions and limitations it confers on human behavior. For instance, our competitive instincts often drive social hierarchies and inequality, while our cooperative instincts fuel social bonds and communities. A governance model, therefore, must address these predispositions by channeling competitive behaviors in constructive ways and fostering cooperation for collective well-being.

The Maslowian Pyramid of Needs: Psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed that humans have a hierarchy of needs, beginning with physiological survival needs, then safety, belonging, esteem, and finally, self-actualization. The theory suggests that our behaviors and motivations shift as these needs are met. A governance system inspired by this hierarchy would prioritize policies ensuring basic needs for all—food, shelter, healthcare, and safety—before advancing to higher-level objectives like education, social harmony, and personal fulfillment. This approach would recognize that social issues and conflicts often arise when basic needs go unmet, creating tension and competition within society. Thus, a governance model should systematically ensure equitable access to these foundational needs, promoting stability and a sense of community as a foundation for societal advancement.

Cause and Effect in Human Cognition and Society: Our growing understanding of the brain reveals that human actions are a product of intricate neural and psychological processes governed by cause and effect. External stimuli, genetic predispositions, and environmental conditioning shape our choices, behaviors, and beliefs. Free will, in the absolute sense, appears to be an illusion, with human actions arising from interconnected causal chains rather than independent agency. Recognizing this deterministic framework, a new governance model would reject punitive systems based on personal blame, favoring instead rehabilitative, preventative, and restorative justice. It would acknowledge that behaviors arise from circumstances, often beyond an individual’s control, and prioritize correcting the systemic factors leading to detrimental behaviors.

Scientific Rationalism as Governance: In a world governed by scientific rationalism, policies would be shaped by empirical evidence and statistical analysis rather than ideology or partisan beliefs. Decisions would be grounded in a nuanced understanding of human psychology, neuroscience, sociology, and economics, with a rigorous commitment to evidence-based approaches. Social structures would be designed to promote education, critical thinking, empathy, and global cooperation, creating a society that values truth, transparency, and collective progress over individual gain.

Designing Governance for Collective Progress: A governance system based on these principles would involve continuous adaptation and accountability, with mechanisms to reassess policies in light of new evidence. It would function less as a rigid system of authority and more as a framework for fostering human flourishing. Power would not concentrate in a few individuals but rather disperse across interdisciplinary councils of scientists, sociologists, psychologists, and other experts whose decisions are reviewed and validated by the public. Technology could facilitate transparency and global participation, providing citizens with direct insights into decisions and processes shaping their society.

In sum, a governance system based on an understanding of human nature, needs, and behavior would be neither democratic, autocratic, nor communist. It would prioritize human development through a deterministic framework that recognizes our evolutionary history, fulfills our basic needs, and applies a scientific approach to policy. Such a system would strive for societal progress by acknowledging the true drivers of human action, thus ensuring that governance aligns with the reality of human psychology and social dynamics, aiming toward a cooperative, sustainable future.

[Age]

Alright, so here’s where things get interesting. If we ditch free will for determinism, it doesn’t erase the need for governance—it just reshapes our approach to it.

Just so it becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR ANY idea about ANY form of 'governance' OVER another being 'needed' will NEVER EVER WORK

A part of the reason WHY 'the world' is in the absolutely MESS that it is in 'now', when this is being written, is because you adult human beings 'hand over' 'the responsibility' for what you do, and for 'what you have done', TO 'others'.

Voting in, or wanting to vote in, 'others' to 'govern' over "one's" own 'self' is, besides a form of absolute LUNACY, is a form of absolute IMMATURITY.

Now, there may well be a 'need' for 'governance', but this 'need' is in the form of 'self-governance', and like having and using 'self-discipline' instead of having and using 'discipline, itself, OVER others', when implemented and in place is HOW and WHEN the Truly peaceful and harmonious world for EVERY one, as One, WILL, and DID, come to begin.

Now, for absolutely ANY one who would like to DISCUSS HOW and WHEN how a 'self-governing world' COULD, and DOES, come-to-be, then, ONCE AGAIN, 'I' am more than willing, wanting, and ready TO DISCUSS.

Even under determinism, we still see distinct social systems emerge, driven by the same physics that guides all events. But those systems don’t need to rest on the belief in individual autonomy; instead, they can leverage our understanding of cause and effect.

In a deterministic framework, governance is about crafting environments that lead to beneficial outcomes, not about enforcing a “will,” whether of the individual or the leader.

BUT, EVERY so-called 'government' just about ALWAYS CLAIMS that it is, or is going to, do what leads to beneficial outcomes.

Although ALL of you adult human beings do, OBVIOUSLY, get CONNED, TRICKED, and/or LIED TO, you ALL, still, FALL INTO the TRAP, and BELIEF, that you ALL 'need to' be 'government' by some one, or some thing, else.

And, what kind of 'environment' do you want actually 'crafted', exactly?

So yes, laws of physics guide behavior, but we can apply our understanding of those laws to build systems that consistently lead to societal well-being.

What 'government' do you think believes that it is not consistently doing what leads to societal well-being?

The government in "north korea" just like the government in "united states of America", for example, both BELIEVE that they are consistently doing what leads to societal well-being.

It’s not about surrendering to fate; it’s about steering outcomes through empirically grounded design. That’s the purpose, if you will, of a government that respects the deterministic nature of human behavior.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The deterministic nature of the human being, and its behavior, is to end up living in peace and harmony with one another, as One.

you human beings, however, are, still, just in the evolutionary process of learning how to consciously create and make this happen.

Alright, Age, you’re raising a bold challenge here—a world without traditional governance, advocating instead for *self-governance* as the true path to peace and harmony. And you know, there’s actually an interesting alignment here with the deterministic approach we’re discussing, but perhaps from a different angle than the one you’re suggesting.

Let’s break it down. In a deterministic view, sure, all behavior—including the impulse toward governance or self-governance—is shaped by underlying causes. But here’s the catch: those causes don’t lead everyone in the same direction naturally. People’s behaviors and needs vary based on their environment, social influences, and biology. So, in the absence of organized systems, self-governance wouldn’t necessarily lead to harmony; rather, it might just mean each individual follows the conditions that shape them—whatever those may be.

you keep missing the point here

This is where structured governance in a deterministic framework comes in. It’s not about enforcing control or imposing a hierarchy, as you rightly critique. Instead, governance becomes about understanding the diverse influences on behavior and designing systems that foster positive environments and minimize conflict.

Does this apply for EVERY individual human being?

Think of it as creating the conditions for harmony and well-being rather than imposing a “will” from above.

I suggest you STOP assuming what I am, or am not, thinking

You’re absolutely right that even governments like North Korea and the U.S. claim they’re working toward societal well-being—but the question is, how closely do their systems align with the real determinants of well-being, like equity, health, and freedom from harm?

When you add the 'determinants' word on, like you did here, it just confuses absolutely every thing.

In the end, this isn’t a handover of responsibility; it’s a reconfiguration.

From who to who?

Instead of expecting individuals to operate in total autonomy—which might sound appealing but doesn’t always match the reality of human behavior—governance in a deterministic model aims to shape a world where positive outcomes emerge more naturally.

you seem to be somewhat, what some call, very 'wishy-washy' here. you will need to elaborate a lot more to have what you want and desire here understood at all.

It’s about creating a setting where conflict is mitigated, and peace and self-governance are not just ideals but practical outcomes.

When will you explain how your ideal here could actually work?

[BigMike]

a superlong comment... (click on arrow above to see.)

Alright, Age, fair enough—you’re asking for clarity, not concepts. Let’s bring this down to the practical, straight answer to the original question: if we throw out the concept of free will in governance, what would actually change?

Here’s the thing. By tossing out free will, we’re no longer looking at governance as a system to “control” or “correct” individuals as if they’re freely making choices we can punish or reward. Instead, we start with the understanding that people are driven by causes—biological, environmental, social, past experiences. So governance shifts from managing choices to managing conditions.

Practically, this would mean a government less focused on punishment for “bad choices” and more on prevention—altering the conditions that give rise to negative outcomes in the first place. Take crime, for instance. A deterministic model wouldn’t just throw people in prison as if they “chose” crime in a vacuum. Instead, it would address poverty, lack of opportunity, social inequality—all factors shown to correlate with crime. In other words, the government’s role is to remove the causes of crime rather than just reacting to the crime itself.

Or look at education. Instead of assuming every individual has the same free capacity to succeed, a deterministic system would recognize that disparities in background, resources, and support affect outcomes. Policy would shift toward leveling those conditions, so each person has a real chance, shaped by a supportive environment.

So, to answer your question on how this model would actually work: it’s about moving governance from punitive systems toward constructive, preventative frameworks. We’d see governance as a force that shapes environments, not as an enforcer of individual will. And yes, it applies universally, as every human being is influenced by the conditions around them.

This isn’t “wishy-washy” idealism. It’s a realistic, empirically grounded approach to creating a system that respects the forces actually shaping human behavior. Does that help clarify?

[godelian]

If there’s no reproducible evidence of free will operating independently of deterministic physical processes, the burden remains on those proposing such an influence to demonstrate it within the frameworks that already govern scientific inquiry.

Neither side has managed to successfully conduct an experiment. Hence, the question is rather if experimentally testing the problem is even possible? At the moment, it clearly isn't.

Another objection to your brand of physical determinism, is Rice Theorem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem

In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic property is one about the program's behavior (for instance, "does the program terminate for all inputs?"), unlike a syntactic property (for instance, "does the program contain an if-then-else statement?"). A non-trivial property is one which is neither true for every program, nor false for every program.

Even with perfect knowledge of source code, inputs, and environment, it is impossible to predict what an arbitrary program is going to do at runtime.

Perfect knowledge of the status of the computing device in terms of conservation laws won't overrule Rice Theorem. The general case remains that software is fundamentally unpredictable.

Science cannot predict what a computing device is going to do. No need for any experimental test to assert that. Human free will is even more intractable than computing devices, since we do not even have its source code. What makes you believe that science can adequately handle this problem?

[BigMike]

If there’s no reproducible evidence of free will operating independently of deterministic physical processes, the burden remains on those proposing such an influence to demonstrate it within the frameworks that already govern scientific inquiry.

Neither side has managed to successfully conduct an experiment. Hence, the question is rather if experimentally testing the problem is even possible? At the moment, it clearly isn't.

Another objection to your brand of physical determinism, is Rice Theorem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem

In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic property is one about the program's behavior (for instance, "does the program terminate for all inputs?"), unlike a syntactic property (for instance, "does the program contain an if-then-else statement?"). A non-trivial property is one which is neither true for every program, nor false for every program.

Even with perfect knowledge of source code, inputs, and environment, it is impossible to predict what an arbitrary program is going to do at runtime.

Perfect knowledge of the status of the computing device in terms of conservation laws won't overrule Rice Theorem. The general case remains that software is fundamentally unpredictable.

Science cannot predict what a computing device is going to do. No need for any experimental test to assert that. Human free will is even more intractable than computing devices, since we do not even have its source code. What makes you believe that science can adequately handle this problem?

Rice’s theorem is an interesting angle, pointing to the limits of predictability in computation, but it doesn’t actually undercut the argument against free will from the perspective of physical determinism. Here’s why:

1. Science’s Job is to Disprove, Not Prove
The scientific method doesn’t set out to prove ideas true; it sets out to disprove them. A scientific theory holds only as long as it withstands attempts to falsify it. Conservation laws—like the conservation of energy and momentum—have withstood every challenge ever thrown at them. They’ve never been disproven, which is why they’re considered bedrock principles of physics.

Now, if free will requires introducing energy or momentum into the brain without a preceding cause, then it conflicts with these conservation laws. For free will believers, the burden is to show either (1) a reproducible instance of conservation laws being violated, or (2) an alternative framework that reconciles free will with conservation laws. Without this, science has no reason to abandon determinism.

2. Unpredictability Doesn’t Equal Free Will
Rice’s theorem highlights that certain properties of programs, like termination, are undecidable. This unpredictability arises from logical limits within computation. But unpredictability in computation or even human behavior doesn’t imply freedom from deterministic processes—it simply means the system is too complex for precise prediction.

Here’s the key: physical determinism doesn’t rely on predictability. A system can be deterministic and still exhibit chaotic or unpredictable behavior due to its complexity. What determinism asserts is that all events—including human decisions—arise from prior physical causes.

3. The Unbreakable Role of Conservation Laws
Even if the brain is an incredibly complex system, governed by chaotic dynamics, it’s still subject to the laws of conservation. Free will, to operate as an independent force, would require violating these laws—creating or redirecting energy in a way that has no prior physical cause. This isn’t just about unpredictability; it’s about physical impossibility under our current understanding of the universe.

And here’s where the free will believers face a choice: if they can’t disprove that conservation laws make free will impossible, they must either reject free will or reject conservation laws. They can’t have both. Conservation laws stand until disproven, and so far, there’s zero evidence of violations in any context, including brain activity.

4. Complexity Doesn’t Override Determinism
Human behavior might seem more “intractable” than computational systems due to its complexity. But this doesn’t mean it’s uncaused or free from deterministic processes. Even chaotic systems—like weather or ecosystems—are still governed by physical laws. The brain’s decisions, no matter how complex, ultimately arise from biochemical and neurological processes that conform to the laws of physics.

Wrapping It Up
Science isn’t about proving free will doesn’t exist—it’s about upholding laws that can’t be falsified until evidence demands it. If free will believers want to assert their case, they need to show empirical evidence that decisions can occur without prior physical causes and without violating conservation laws. Until then, the argument from determinism and conservation laws stands strong. It’s a clear case: you either have to reject free will or rewrite the fundamental laws of physics. But you can’t have both.

[godelian]

Now, if free will requires introducing energy or momentum into the brain without a preceding cause, then it conflicts with these conservation laws.

The state of a computer system is represented by billions of transistors polarized in one direction or in another. Maintaining this state requires a pretty much constant supply of energy. There are also running processes that alter this overall state. That does not require introducing additional energy or momentum beyond the existing constant supply.

(In practice, there are some fluctuations in energy supply. However, you can actually alter the programs to hide these changes. This is often done in cryptographically secure programs.)

So, now we have a system that continuously changes its state without introducing new energy. There simply is no link between its energy levels and the changes in its state.

Therefore, looking at energy levels won't tell you anything about its state or what exactly it is currently doing. Hence, conservation laws are irrelevant in this context.

Energy and other variables in the conservation laws are never absolute values. It is always about a change that leads to another change. In that sense, absolute levels of energy cannot even be defined. It is always about differences.

In a computer system, there are no such differences. Differences in energy levels do not explain at all the changes in the computer's state.

I don't know the details of how a human brain works, but the way in which a computer system works is already one example in which differences in energy levels are utterly irrelevant as to what is really going on, i.e. the changes in state of the system.

[Age]

a superlong comment... (click on arrow above to see.)

Alright, Age, fair enough—you’re asking for clarity, not concepts. Let’s bring this down to the practical, straight answer to the original question: if we throw out the concept of free will in governance, what would actually change?

Here’s the thing. By tossing out free will, we’re no longer looking at governance as a system to “control” or “correct” individuals as if they’re freely making choices we can punish or reward.

I do not know of any one who was doing this before.

you really are 'stuck' on having your 'determinism only' belief heard, and accepted, here, correct?

Instead, we start with the understanding that people are driven by causes—biological, environmental, social, past experiences.

Again, no one that I know of is, nor was, disagreeing with this.

Are you able to list any one who does not understand, and/or disagrees, that people are driven by 'causes'?

If yes, then will you list them?

If no, then why not?

So governance shifts from managing choices to managing conditions.

And, ONCE AGAIN, how it is even remotely possible to manage 'past experiences'.

Also, and OBVIOUSLY, it is ONLY 'past experiences' that can affect 'current happenings'.

Practically, this would mean a government less focused on punishment for “bad choices” and more on prevention—altering the conditions that give rise to negative outcomes in the first place.

you have repeated this I have forgotten how many times, already.

Take crime, for instance. A deterministic model wouldn’t just throw people in prison as if they “chose” crime in a vacuum. Instead, it would address poverty,

But, 'poverty', itself, does not induce nor cause crime.

lack of opportunity, social inequality—all factors shown to correlate with crime.

But, 'correlation' is NOT 'cause'.

From what I have understood here you have wanted to get to the 'root cause' for human behavior and human misbehavior.

And, let 'us' not forget that I have already informed you of what that 'root cause' is, exactly, and, that what 'correlates' with some thing does not mean that it is 'the cause' of that thing.

In other words, the government’s role is to remove the causes of crime rather than just reacting to the crime itself.

Once again, you are 'expecting' others to do what you, "yourself", could and can do.

Or look at education.

Do you want me to look at 'education' from that word refers to in the days when this was being written, or what that word referred to once upon a time? They are, after all, two very different, and opposing, perspectives.

Instead of assuming every individual has the same free capacity to succeed, a deterministic system would recognize that disparities in background, resources, and support affect outcomes.

Not that there is a 'free will system' NOT a 'deterministic system'. but, to play along here let 'us' presume that if there was a 'free will system'. then 'that system' still recognizes the disparities in background, resources, and support affect outcome.

Why did you presume that a 'free will system' would not?

Policy would shift toward leveling those conditions, so each person has a real chance, shaped by a supportive environment.

But, WHY would 'policy' change? 'Policy' is written and/or created by some of the most selfish and greedy people in society. So, surely 'policy' is written and made so that some benefit more than others. As can be obviously SEEN, and NOTICED.

So, to answer your question on how this model would actually work: it’s about moving governance from punitive systems toward constructive, preventative frameworks.

LOL people seeking to get voted in to 'govern' USE 'stronger punishment promises' so as to obtain and gain more votes.

We’d see governance as a force that shapes environments, not as an enforcer of individual will.

When? And, which 'government' is going to do this, for you people who vote for 'governments'?

And yes, it applies universally, as every human being is influenced by the conditions around them.

This isn’t “wishy-washy” idealism.

Are you sure?

Will you present an actual plan of how 'it' could work?

It’s a realistic,

Do not forget that 'it' is, still, only just an 'idea/l', which you, really, want.

empirically grounded approach to creating a system that respects the forces actually shaping human behavior. Does that help clarify?

No. How could and will 'it' actually work, and actually could and will come-into-fruition?

[BigMike]

a superlong comment... (click on arrow above to see.)

Alright, Age, fair enough—you’re asking for clarity, not concepts. Let’s bring this down to the practical, straight answer to the original question: if we throw out the concept of free will in governance, what would actually change?

Here’s the thing. By tossing out free will, we’re no longer looking at governance as a system to “control” or “correct” individuals as if they’re freely making choices we can punish or reward.

I do not know of any one who was doing this before.

you really are 'stuck' on having your 'determinism only' belief heard, and accepted, here, correct?

Instead, we start with the understanding that people are driven by causes—biological, environmental, social, past experiences.

Again, no one that I know of is, nor was, disagreeing with this.

Are you able to list any one who does not understand, and/or disagrees, that people are driven by 'causes'?

If yes, then will you list them?

If no, then why not?

So governance shifts from managing choices to managing conditions.

And, ONCE AGAIN, how it is even remotely possible to manage 'past experiences'.

Also, and OBVIOUSLY, it is ONLY 'past experiences' that can affect 'current happenings'.

Practically, this would mean a government less focused on punishment for “bad choices” and more on prevention—altering the conditions that give rise to negative outcomes in the first place.

you have repeated this I have forgotten how many times, already.

Take crime, for instance. A deterministic model wouldn’t just throw people in prison as if they “chose” crime in a vacuum. Instead, it would address poverty,

But, 'poverty', itself, does not induce nor cause crime.

lack of opportunity, social inequality—all factors shown to correlate with crime.

But, 'correlation' is NOT 'cause'.

From what I have understood here you have wanted to get to the 'root cause' for human behavior and human misbehavior.

And, let 'us' not forget that I have already informed you of what that 'root cause' is, exactly, and, that what 'correlates' with some thing does not mean that it is 'the cause' of that thing.

In other words, the government’s role is to remove the causes of crime rather than just reacting to the crime itself.

Once again, you are 'expecting' others to do what you, "yourself", could and can do.

Or look at education.

Do you want me to look at 'education' from that word refers to in the days when this was being written, or what that word referred to once upon a time? They are, after all, two very different, and opposing, perspectives.

Instead of assuming every individual has the same free capacity to succeed, a deterministic system would recognize that disparities in background, resources, and support affect outcomes.

Not that there is a 'free will system' NOT a 'deterministic system'. but, to play along here let 'us' presume that if there was a 'free will system'. then 'that system' still recognizes the disparities in background, resources, and support affect outcome.

Why did you presume that a 'free will system' would not?

Policy would shift toward leveling those conditions, so each person has a real chance, shaped by a supportive environment.

But, WHY would 'policy' change? 'Policy' is written and/or created by some of the most selfish and greedy people in society. So, surely 'policy' is written and made so that some benefit more than others. As can be obviously SEEN, and NOTICED.

So, to answer your question on how this model would actually work: it’s about moving governance from punitive systems toward constructive, preventative frameworks.

LOL people seeking to get voted in to 'govern' USE 'stronger punishment promises' so as to obtain and gain more votes.

We’d see governance as a force that shapes environments, not as an enforcer of individual will.

When? And, which 'government' is going to do this, for you people who vote for 'governments'?

And yes, it applies universally, as every human being is influenced by the conditions around them.

This isn’t “wishy-washy” idealism.

Are you sure?

Will you present an actual plan of how 'it' could work?

It’s a realistic,

Do not forget that 'it' is, still, only just an 'idea/l', which you, really, want.

empirically grounded approach to creating a system that respects the forces actually shaping human behavior. Does that help clarify?

No. How could and will 'it' actually work, and actually could and will come-into-fruition?

Let’s get down to brass tacks here because you’re calling for something tangible, and I hear you. We’ve been circling around theory, but you’re asking: how would this actually *work*? And more importantly, how could it *be realized* in a world shaped by the forces we’ve got right now?

To answer the initial challenge—*what changes if we ditch free will in governance*—and to give you a clear path forward, let’s tackle this systematically:

1. Governance Beyond Punishment
You mentioned that no one you know is still thinking of governance as "punishing choices." Fair. But the punitive systems we see now—whether prisons or debt traps—do function as if people made freely bad choices in a vacuum. A deterministic model would reframe this. Policies wouldn’t just throw “criminals” in prison or “failures” into poverty; they’d address the underlying conditions (yes, including past experiences) that shape those behaviors. It’s not about managing the past—it’s about understanding the chain of causality to shape better outcomes moving forward.

Here’s the key shift: instead of assuming people need correction, governance becomes about designing environments that promote cooperation, fairness, and well-being. This includes fair education systems, social safety nets, and justice reforms—all built to minimize the triggers that lead to destructive behaviors.

2. Addressing Root Causes of Disparity
Now, you’ve pointed out that factors like poverty or inequality correlate with negative outcomes but aren’t the root cause. Spot on—correlation isn’t causation. But the root causes are deeply tied to inequities in past experiences. Think generational wealth gaps, uneven access to education, or systemic biases. A deterministic model would work to level the playing field—acknowledging that disparity is a product of those past chains, not individual shortcomings.

And yes, policies today are often shaped by selfish or short-sighted motives. That’s where transparency and accountability mechanisms grounded in empirical evidence come in. It’s not perfect, but systems like independent audits or public scrutiny of policies could ensure they align with evidence, not self-interest.

3. Empirically Grounded Policy Creation
You’re asking for a concrete plan, not just an idea. Here’s one example: imagine legislation being drafted based on behavioral economics, neuroscience, and sociology—not political ideology. For instance, universal basic income (UBI) isn’t just a handout; it’s a way to counteract the inequities baked into past economic systems. It ensures every individual has a foundation, regardless of the conditions they were born into.

4. Making It Realistic in Today’s World
You’re right to call out that governments are often self-serving. So, how does this deterministic approach take hold? Step by step, through:
- Education reform to teach systems thinking and causality (so voters demand better governance).
- Grassroots movements pushing for specific evidence-based policies (UBI, healthcare reform, climate justice).
- Leveraging tech for transparent decision-making (think blockchain for tracking government spending).

Is this utopian? Maybe. But here’s the practical takeaway: if governance starts from understanding causality—not just in human behavior but in systemic outcomes—we shift the focus from control to construction. The challenge is building trust and pushing for these shifts within existing systems. Does this bring us closer to a practical vision?

Let’s weave in a fundamental point here: building entire governance systems on the premise of free will—a concept that, at its core, is physically impossible—makes no sense. For those who understand, and who *dare to know* what they understand, it becomes clear that free will is a falsehood, as incapable of pushing atoms around as any other non-physical idea. And if the foundation is false, like the notion of “casting a free vote,” then the structures built upon it are inherently flawed. The question becomes: why persist in designing systems that ignore the undeniable reality of causality? Shouldn’t we, instead, create governance aligned with what we know to be true?

[BigMike]

If free will requires introducing energy or momentum into the brain without a preceding cause, then it conflicts with these conservation laws.

The state of a computer system is represented by billions of transistors polarized in one direction or in another. Maintaining this state requires a pretty much constant supply of energy. There are also running processes that alter this overall state. That does not require introducing additional energy or momentum beyond the existing constant supply.

(In practice, there are some fluctuations in energy supply. However, you can actually alter the programs to hide these changes. This is often done in cryptographically secure programs.)

So, now we have a system that continuously changes its state without introducing new energy. There simply is no link between its energy levels and the changes in its state.

Therefore, looking at energy levels won't tell you anything about its state or what exactly it is currently doing. Hence, conservation laws are irrelevant in this context.

Energy and other variables in the conservation laws are never absolute values. It is always about a change that leads to another change. In that sense, absolute levels of energy cannot even be defined. It is always about differences.

In a computer system, there are no such differences. Differences in energy levels do not explain at all the changes in the computer's state.

I don't know the details of how a human brain works, but the way in which a computer system works is already one example in which differences in energy levels are utterly irrelevant as to what is really going on, i.e., the changes in state of the system.

Alright, this is an interesting analogy using computers to argue that changes in state don’t necessarily rely on differences in energy levels. Let’s unpack why this analogy doesn’t apply in the same way to the conservation law argument against free will.

1. Computers Don’t Violate Conservation Laws
You’re absolutely correct that a computer’s state changes without requiring the introduction of "new" energy. But that’s because the energy it uses is already accounted for—it comes from the power supply, which is a physical source. Every change in the state of a transistor corresponds to a physical process: electrons moving due to the applied voltage. The system obeys conservation laws because the energy causing these state changes is continuously supplied and accounted for. There’s no mystery or violation there.

2. Energy and State Changes in the Brain
Similarly, the brain operates on energy from its environment—metabolizing glucose and oxygen to power its neural processes. Every neuronal state change (like neuron firing) involves physical inputs, such as electrochemical gradients and synaptic transmissions. These processes don’t create energy; they transform it from one form to another, perfectly consistent with conservation laws.

However, if free will exists as an independent force that *causes* state changes in the brain, it would need to intervene in these physical processes without being reducible to them. This would require adding new energy or momentum to the system—something for which there’s no physical source. That’s the key difference: conservation laws demand that every physical effect (like a change in brain state) must have a physical cause.

3. Computers vs. Brains: Not an Equal Parallel
A computer is deterministic and doesn’t require an external, non-physical “will” to change its state. Its state changes are fully explainable by the electrical energy supplied to it. If you’re arguing that the brain works the same way, you’re actually supporting the deterministic view. But if you’re arguing that free will can act independently of deterministic physical inputs, you need to show how it can do so without introducing uncaused energy or violating conservation laws.

4. The Irrelevance of Absolute Energy Levels
You’re right again that conservation laws deal with changes in energy, not absolute levels. But the argument here isn’t about tracking absolute energy levels in the brain; it’s about the origin of the energy or momentum behind state changes. If free will were to intervene in brain processes, it would need to produce effects (like neuronal firing) that are uncaused by prior physical states. This would necessitate introducing unaccounted-for energy into the system, which directly conflicts with conservation laws.

Wrapping It Up
The computer analogy doesn’t sidestep conservation laws—it actually reinforces them. Changes in state in both computers and brains are explained by the energy provided through physical processes. For free will to exist as an independent force, it would need to alter physical states without a physical cause. That’s where conservation laws become relevant. If free will can’t disprove that it operates without violating these laws, then we’re left with the conclusion that it either doesn’t exist as an independent force or operates entirely within a deterministic framework, just like a computer. You can’t escape conservation laws—they apply to all physical systems, brains included.

[godelian]

Changes in state in both computers and brains are explained by the energy provided through physical processes.

A computer is under constant energy supply -- in which no changes occur -- while its state changes continuously because of the various processes that it runs. This constant energy level is irrelevant because the conservation laws are about differences in energy level causing changes. Hence, the change in a computer state is not explained by the [changes in] energy level through physical processes.

Furthermore, according to Rice Theorem, we can generally not predict just from looking at source code, inputs, and environment, what changes will take place in the computer's state. Therefore, it is not a deterministic process at all.

Conclusion. There are no changes in energy level, subject to conservation laws, that cause changes in the state of a computer. This means that the conservation laws are irrelevant in this context.

[BigMike]

Changes in state in both computers and brains are explained by the energy provided through physical processes.

A computer is under constant energy supply -- in which no changes occur -- while its state changes continuously because of the various processes that it runs. This constant energy level is irrelevant because the conservation laws are about differences in energy level causing changes. Hence, the change in a computer state is not explained by the [changes in] energy level through physical processes.

Furthermore, according to Rice Theorem, we can generally not predict just from looking at source code, inputs, and environment, what changes will take place in the computer's state. Therefore, it is not a deterministic process at all.

Conclusion. There are no changes in energy level, subject to conservation laws, that cause changes in the state of a computer. This means that the conservation laws are irrelevant in this context.

Alright, let’s tackle this systematically. The computer analogy is being stretched here, so let’s clarify a few critical points.

1. Conservation Laws Still Govern Computers
While you argue that a computer’s state changes without changes in energy levels, that’s not the full picture. Every change in a computer’s state—such as a transistor flipping from one polarity to another—does involve the transfer of energy at the microscopic level. The system operates under the principles of electromagnetism, where electric current (energy in motion) drives changes in the state of the transistors.

The fact that the energy supply is “constant” doesn’t mean conservation laws are irrelevant. It means the energy to change states is continuously drawn from a physical source (the power supply) and accounted for. Every microscopic state change complies with conservation laws—it just happens within a system where energy is being supplied at a steady rate. The lack of macroscopic fluctuations in energy doesn’t negate the conservation principles governing the underlying processes.

2. Unpredictability ≠ Non-Determinism
Rice’s theorem describes limits in computational predictability. Specifically, it states that we cannot determine certain semantic properties of programs, like whether they will terminate, in all cases. However, unpredictability in this sense does not imply non-determinism. A computer is still deterministic in its operation—given the same inputs, environment, and code, it will produce the same outputs. The unpredictability lies in our ability to predict the system’s behavior, not in the system itself being undetermined.

Similarly, the brain could exhibit chaotic, complex, or even unpredictable behavior without being non-deterministic. Complexity and determinism are not mutually exclusive.

3. The Brain Is Not Like a Computer in Key Ways
A computer’s processes are entirely driven by external energy sources and strictly follow physical laws. If you’re arguing that the brain is analogous, then you’re supporting the deterministic view of human decision-making. However, if you’re arguing that the brain operates under free will, you must show how decisions arise independently of deterministic physical processes. Free will would require the brain to perform actions that aren’t caused by prior states—and this would necessitate introducing uncaused energy or momentum into the system.

The conservation laws become highly relevant here because they explicitly forbid such uncaused interventions. Unlike a computer, where all state changes trace back to a physical energy source, free will as an independent force would require violating conservation principles.

4. Conclusion: Conservation Laws Are Highly Relevant
In both computers and brains, state changes arise from physical processes governed by energy transfer. The fact that a computer draws energy from a constant supply doesn’t make conservation laws irrelevant—it simply reflects that the energy driving its processes is accounted for. Similarly, if free will exists as an independent force, it would need to introduce unaccounted-for energy or momentum into the brain to affect its state. This would directly contradict conservation laws.

The analogy to computers, therefore, doesn’t undermine conservation laws. Instead, it reinforces the point: in both systems, state changes are explained by physical processes, and no new energy appears from nowhere. Conservation laws remain central to understanding why free will, as an uncaused force, cannot coexist with a deterministic framework governed by physics. If free will cannot disprove these laws, then it must either align with determinism or be discarded as an independent phenomenon.

[Age]

Alright, Age, fair enough—you’re asking for clarity, not concepts. Let’s bring this down to the practical, straight answer to the original question: if we throw out the concept of free will in governance, what would actually change?

Here’s the thing. By tossing out free will, we’re no longer looking at governance as a system to “control” or “correct” individuals as if they’re freely making choices we can punish or reward.

I do not know of any one who was doing this before.

you really are 'stuck' on having your 'determinism only' belief heard, and accepted, here, correct?

Instead, we start with the understanding that people are driven by causes—biological, environmental, social, past experiences.

Again, no one that I know of is, nor was, disagreeing with this.

Are you able to list any one who does not understand, and/or disagrees, that people are driven by 'causes'?

If yes, then will you list them?

If no, then why not?

So governance shifts from managing choices to managing conditions.

And, ONCE AGAIN, how it is even remotely possible to manage 'past experiences'.

Also, and OBVIOUSLY, it is ONLY 'past experiences' that can affect 'current happenings'.

Practically, this would mean a government less focused on punishment for “bad choices” and more on prevention—altering the conditions that give rise to negative outcomes in the first place.

you have repeated this I have forgotten how many times, already.

Take crime, for instance. A deterministic model wouldn’t just throw people in prison as if they “chose” crime in a vacuum. Instead, it would address poverty,

But, 'poverty', itself, does not induce nor cause crime.

lack of opportunity, social inequality—all factors shown to correlate with crime.

But, 'correlation' is NOT 'cause'.

From what I have understood here you have wanted to get to the 'root cause' for human behavior and human misbehavior.

And, let 'us' not forget that I have already informed you of what that 'root cause' is, exactly, and, that what 'correlates' with some thing does not mean that it is 'the cause' of that thing.

In other words, the government’s role is to remove the causes of crime rather than just reacting to the crime itself.

Once again, you are 'expecting' others to do what you, "yourself", could and can do.

Or look at education.

Do you want me to look at 'education' from that word refers to in the days when this was being written, or what that word referred to once upon a time? They are, after all, two very different, and opposing, perspectives.

Instead of assuming every individual has the same free capacity to succeed, a deterministic system would recognize that disparities in background, resources, and support affect outcomes.

Not that there is a 'free will system' NOT a 'deterministic system'. but, to play along here let 'us' presume that if there was a 'free will system'. then 'that system' still recognizes the disparities in background, resources, and support affect outcome.

Why did you presume that a 'free will system' would not?

Policy would shift toward leveling those conditions, so each person has a real chance, shaped by a supportive environment.

But, WHY would 'policy' change? 'Policy' is written and/or created by some of the most selfish and greedy people in society. So, surely 'policy' is written and made so that some benefit more than others. As can be obviously SEEN, and NOTICED.

So, to answer your question on how this model would actually work: it’s about moving governance from punitive systems toward constructive, preventative frameworks.

LOL people seeking to get voted in to 'govern' USE 'stronger punishment promises' so as to obtain and gain more votes.

We’d see governance as a force that shapes environments, not as an enforcer of individual will.

When? And, which 'government' is going to do this, for you people who vote for 'governments'?

And yes, it applies universally, as every human being is influenced by the conditions around them.

This isn’t “wishy-washy” idealism.

Are you sure?

Will you present an actual plan of how 'it' could work?

It’s a realistic,

Do not forget that 'it' is, still, only just an 'idea/l', which you, really, want.

empirically grounded approach to creating a system that respects the forces actually shaping human behavior. Does that help clarify?

No. How could and will 'it' actually work, and actually could and will come-into-fruition?

Let’s get down to brass tacks here because you’re calling for something tangible, and I hear you. We’ve been circling around theory, but you’re asking: how would this actually *work*? And more importantly, how could it *be realized* in a world shaped by the forces we’ve got right now?

Which ALL came from last events.

To answer the initial challenge—*what changes if we ditch free will in governance*—and to give you a clear path forward, let’s tackle this systematically:

1. Governance Beyond Punishment
You mentioned that no one you know is still thinking of governance as "punishing choices." Fair. But the punitive systems we see now—whether prisons or debt traps—do function as if people made freely bad choices in a vacuum. A deterministic model would reframe this. Policies wouldn’t just throw “criminals” in prison or “failures” into poverty; they’d address the underlying conditions (yes, including past experiences) that shape those behaviors. It’s not about managing the past—it’s about understanding the chain of causality to shape better outcomes moving forward.

Here’s the key shift: instead of assuming people need correction, governance becomes about designing environments that promote cooperation, fairness, and well-being. This includes fair education systems, social safety nets, and justice reforms—all built to minimize the triggers that lead to destructive behaviors.

2. Addressing Root Causes of Disparity
Now, you’ve pointed out that factors like poverty or inequality correlate with negative outcomes but aren’t the root cause. Spot on—correlation isn’t causation. But the root causes are deeply tied to inequities in past experiences. Think generational wealth gaps, uneven access to education, or systemic biases. A deterministic model would work to level the playing field—acknowledging that disparity is a product of those past chains, not individual shortcomings.

And yes, policies today are often shaped by selfish or short-sighted motives. That’s where transparency and accountability mechanisms grounded in empirical evidence come in. It’s not perfect, but systems like independent audits or public scrutiny of policies could ensure they align with evidence, not self-interest.

3. Empirically Grounded Policy Creation
You’re asking for a concrete plan, not just an idea. Here’s one example: imagine legislation being drafted based on behavioral economics, neuroscience, and sociology—not political ideology. For instance, universal basic income (UBI) isn’t just a handout; it’s a way to counteract the inequities baked into past economic systems. It ensures every individual has a foundation, regardless of the conditions they were born into.

4. Making It Realistic in Today’s World
You’re right to call out that governments are often self-serving. So, how does this deterministic approach take hold? Step by step, through:
- Education reform to teach systems thinking and causality (so voters demand better governance).
- Grassroots movements pushing for specific evidence-based policies (UBI, healthcare reform, climate justice).
- Leveraging tech for transparent decision-making (think blockchain for tracking government spending).

Is this utopian? Maybe. But here’s the practical takeaway: if governance starts from understanding causality—not just in human behavior but in systemic outcomes—we shift the focus from control to construction. The challenge is building trust and pushing for these shifts within existing systems. Does this bring us closer to a practical vision?

Let’s weave in a fundamental point here: building entire governance systems on the premise of free will—a concept that, at its core, is physically impossible—makes no sense. For those who understand, and who *dare to know* what they understand, it becomes clear that free will is a falsehood, as incapable of pushing atoms around as any other non-physical idea. And if the foundation is false, like the notion of “casting a free vote,” then the structures built upon it are inherently flawed. The question becomes: why persist in designing systems that ignore the undeniable reality of causality? Shouldn’t we, instead, create governance aligned with what we know to be true?

I have not yet ready any thing past, 'let’s tackle this systematically', because;

you really cannot,yet, stop "yourself" from 'wanting to' and 'trying to' ditch 'free will'.

Besides the fact that I have already explained that it would not matter if you or any others imaginarily 'ditched' 'free will', the Fact that 'free will' is HERE, under the definition I gave, and could NEVER EVER be HERE, to 'ditch', under your definition, anyway, 'ditching' 'free will' under your definition is NOT going to have any bearing at all on what you are wanting to achieve, here.

[BigMike]

...

Let’s cut straight to it and explore the core question here: if we accept that all human behavior is shaped by causes, not freely willed choices, how does that shift governance? This isn’t just a debate over definitions; it’s about understanding the practical implications of a deterministic framework and why it matters for how we structure society.

Let’s start with the idea that governance today often operates on the assumption that individuals are fully responsible for their actions, independent of the forces that shaped them. This mindset underpins systems of blame, punishment, and reward—whether it’s prisons, economic policies, or educational opportunities. But when we recognize that behavior is the product of past experiences, social influences, and biology, the focus shifts. It’s no longer about blaming or rewarding individuals for their circumstances. Instead, governance becomes about addressing the conditions that lead to certain behaviors.

Take the justice system, for instance. In a deterministic framework, the goal isn’t to punish "bad actors" as though they freely chose their actions in a vacuum. Instead, the focus shifts to rehabilitation and prevention, targeting the underlying causes of crime—poverty, lack of education, systemic inequality—rather than reacting punitively. The same applies to economic systems. A deterministic perspective recognizes that success or failure isn’t purely a matter of personal merit but of starting points, opportunities, and systemic factors. Policies like universal basic income or equitable education access stem from this understanding, leveling the playing field rather than perpetuating disparities.

This shift isn’t about abandoning responsibility but rethinking it. Blame and punishment give way to prevention and equity. Instead of asking, "What did this person choose?" we ask, "What conditions led to this outcome, and how can they be improved?" Governance moves from being reactive—fixing problems after they occur—to proactive, designing systems that minimize harm and maximize opportunity.

Ultimately, this approach questions the very foundation of governance systems based on free will. If behavior is caused, then systems built on the premise of individual autonomy—like meritocracies that ignore inequities or justice systems rooted in retribution—are inherently flawed. The goal isn’t just to "ditch" free will as a concept but to align governance with the reality of causality. The real question becomes: how do we build systems that acknowledge this reality and create better outcomes for everyone?

So here’s where I’d nudge the conversation: if we agree that human behavior is shaped by causes, how do we translate that understanding into a governance model? How do we replace systems of blame and punishment with ones focused on prevention and fairness? What does governance look like when it aligns with what we know about how people truly operate?

[Age]

...

Let’s cut straight to it and explore the core question here: if we accept that all human behavior is shaped by causes, not freely willed choices, how does that shift governance?

Probably in the exact same way if we accept all human behavior' is not shaped by causes.

That is; governments do not care what you human beings accept, or do not accept. The people in governments only really care about how they can keep tricking and fooling you adult human beings into continually voting for them, so that they can get more money from you human beings.

The people in governments are not 'shifted' by what they can do for, but rather by what they can get from you.

This isn’t just a debate over definitions; it’s about understanding the practical implications of a deterministic framework and why it matters for how we structure society.

So, how are you, individually, defining the 'deterministic' word, here, exactly?

Let’s start with the idea that governance today often operates on the assumption that individuals are fully responsible for their actions, independent of the forces that shaped them.

But WHY start with ANY idea, which may or may not be true?

This mindset underpins systems of blame, punishment, and reward—whether it’s prisons, economic policies, or educational opportunities. But when we recognize that behavior is the product of past experiences, social influences, and biology, the focus shifts.

Really?

A lot of you human beings say and claim that your are even born with your behaviors. Yet, this has never shifted you adult human beings from judging, punishing, and ridiculing. So, WHY would your idea here do so?

It’s no longer about blaming or rewarding individuals for their circumstances. Instead, governance becomes about addressing the conditions that lead to certain behaviors.

And, who are these ones in 'governance' who WILL do what you say and claim.

Also, have you noticed how many times you re-repeat the same things, while never getting around to explaining how they will actually come about?

Take the justice system, for instance. In a deterministic framework, the goal isn’t to punish "bad actors" as though they freely chose their actions in a vacuum.

Even those who are said to be, 'born that way', still get punished by you adult human beings in the laughably called 'justice system'.

But, they cannot help it because of their past experiences, right?

Instead, the focus shifts to rehabilitation and prevention, targeting the underlying causes of crime—poverty, lack of education, systemic inequality—rather than reacting punitively.

And, WHEN is this going to start, exactly?

The same applies to economic systems. A deterministic perspective recognizes that success or failure isn’t purely a matter of personal merit but of starting points, opportunities, and systemic factors.

But, there is NO success NOR failure in some so-called 'economic system'.

But, for those like you who BELIEVE there is, then what is success and failure here in relation to, exactly?

Policies like universal basic income or equitable education access stem from this understanding, leveling the playing field rather than perpetuating disparities.

But WHY?

This understanding has been understood for countless centuries, already. So, WHEN are these 'systems' going to BEGIN?

This shift isn’t about abandoning responsibility but rethinking it. Blame and punishment give way to prevention and equity. Instead of asking, "What did this person choose?" we ask, "What conditions led to this outcome, and how can they be improved?"

And, I have ALREADY informed of what condition led to them, and how they can be improved. But, like the others you have not been LISTENING.

Governance moves from being reactive—fixing problems after they occur—to proactive, designing systems that minimize harm and maximize opportunity.

Again, WHEN?

Ultimately, this approach questions the very foundation of governance systems based on free will.

But, HOW can 'this approach' question systems based on free will when you have already stated that it will only BEGIN AFTER 'free will' has already been 'ditched' and 'tossed out'?

If behavior is caused, then systems built on the premise of individual autonomy—like meritocracies that ignore inequities or justice systems rooted in retribution—are inherently flawed. The goal isn’t just to "ditch" free will as a concept but to align governance with the reality of causality.

Are you aware that you would have to first prove that what you just 'currently' BELIEVE is true is actually irrefutably True?

If yes, then WHEN are you going to present a sound and valid argument, which backs up and supports this. BELIEF of yours here

The real question becomes: how do we build systems that acknowledge this reality and create better outcomes for everyone?

Just because you say and claim that 'it' is the reality in no way means that it is.

you own personal past experiences appear to not have yet informed you of this irrefutable Fact

So here’s where I’d nudge the conversation: if we agree that human behavior is shaped by causes, how do we translate that understanding into a governance model?

ONCE MORE, into the self-governance model.

As I partly explained before this is the ONLY WAY that what you want to happen here will work.

How do we replace systems of blame and punishment with ones focused on prevention and fairness?

As I informed you previously already, through Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better. With the H.O.W. formula this is, literally, HOW the already tried and tested solution can, will, and does work.

What does governance look like when it aligns with what we know about how people truly operate?

A Self-governed society, where EVERY one 'governs' "them" 'self' ONLY, and where the only 'discipline' is 'self-discipline' in continually learning HOW to 'teach' children what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

Children do NOT need 'discipline', but, in the days when this is being written anyway, all of you adult human beings need a LOT of 'self-discipline' to 'learn' how-to 'teach' children what is Right, in Life.