If the rules were gone tomorrow

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Thursday, July 23, 2009 06:14
VIEWED: 5649
PAGE 3 of 5

In my defense, I'm completely paranoid. I don't even trust my own family.

But just because I am that, doesn't mean I don't think most people are decent. It's just a gap between my logic, and what I feel.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Funny how folks fear their fellow man

---

I only fear them on the road. Without "rules", I could avoid them more efficiently.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Frem,

I think there needs to be a distinction between "rules" and "consequences." Most people think of them as the same thing. But they are not.

Right now, consequences are dealt out to the poor, whether or not they deserve it, and are easily avoided by the rich who can play around the "rules." Rules are supposed to equal consequences, but they don't, and they never will.

I think without consequences, there are a good number of people whose selfish instincts, which are kept in check right now by their perception of "rules = consequences," will cause much suffering in the world. I believe a large part of many genocides happened because the consequences for murder were removed. The Cultural Revolution is a good example; many ordinary people lynched, tortured, and murdered each other for no good reason.

I am all for no more rules. But I do not want to live in a world with no consequences.

If there were no more rules tomorrow, I would:

Speed. Lots and lots of speeding. :)
Drive around without a seatbelt, take my kids out of those stupid car seats.
Practice medicine without a license.
Homeschool any way I want without filling out paperwork or worrying about passing tests.
Put in a new septic tank for my house without asking for permission first.
Sell lemonade from my living room.
Keep all of my lemonade money because I don't have to pay taxes anymore.
Give to charities without worrying about 501c3 forms.
Start a charity without worrying about 501c3 forms.
Go stimulate the economy with all the money I earned that I now get to keep.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Quote:

---

Asking such a question without dicussing the long-term and short-term implications in a practical way is a bit disingenuious, since they would be a bit more than "minor adjustments".

---

Very disingenuous indeed - but the intent was to see folks *reactions* to the concept itself, more than get the questions answered.

Funny how folks fear their fellow man - which isn't without merit, mind you, but I wanted to illustrate very clearly WHY people, as a general rule are not "ready" for self-rule/anarchism - they do NOT have the required mentality for it to function properly, and it would devolve into chaos and disorder, which is despite propaganda to the contrary, a very different thing than anarchism.
(Again, removing legal rules by no means instantly destroys social rules, which every human society has, whether codified into laws or not.)

---

Yes, you already made that pretty obvious by the way you posed the question. I don't think anyone here would even dispute that assertation, but at the same time the biased way you asked the question was bound to draw a biased answer, which is sort of self-serving on your part and undermines you.

I find it much more convincing when you don't work with self-fullfilling verbal traps and instead say what you mean to openly.

Quote:

---

I find it ironic that most folk worry not about themselves, but those mysterious, nebulous "other people"... which are out there, sure, but I suspect not in the numbers or degree which the folk offering to control us all "for our own good" would have us believe.

---

And yet it doesn't take every bad person in the world to be a threat to you when you encounter one or two. People have a right to be worried about predation or even the careless endangerment of other people without being labled paranoid.

The changes in systematic self-defense that people would have to make in their lives are more than minor, to account for the things we DO take advantage of now (law, law enforcement, judicial system) and that this is what people focus on is also not paranoid but normal.

We once had a very interesting conversation about your vision of how an anarchist society would work and I found it convincing up to the point where you couldn't account for the concentration of many people in big cities and how that would affect stress levels and social behavior, long term.

THAT was a good conversation. This one I find myself resenting you for because it's so obviously manipulative.

It robs you of some credibility to sit back and gloat about a reaction you foresaw when that reaction is NOT as irrational as you imply.

Quote:

---

Maybe y'all folk might consider a little faith in your fellow man - not sayin risk your neck or your stuff over it, but perhaps not lookin at everyone else as an imminent threat to you and yours might be a happier, healthier way to live your life, eh ?

---

Sure, maybe hiking off into the woods is a little much, but looking at the sudden removal of rules as a social shock, especially to people who are already in a desperate situation, and recognizing it as a destabilizing factor is only realistic.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

CTS - That's actually a more complex discussion which would be better done in it's own thread, cause the general topic of this one is going in a somewhat different direction.

AgentR -

Quote:

---

Yes, you already made that pretty obvious by the way you posed the question. I don't think anyone here would even dispute that assertation, but at the same time the biased way you asked the question was bound to draw a biased answer, which is sort of self-serving on your part and undermines you.

---

Not so much, cause I wanted folk to offer their perspectives within that window, and get them to really think about WHY they obey the "rules" and what, to them, the important ones that really MATTER, were.

Quote:

---

I find it much more convincing when you don't work with self-fullfilling verbal traps and instead say what you mean to openly.

---

Not self-fulfilling as much as focusing the discussion, and I phrased things in such a way to draw an emotional response which'd be likely a more honest one than otherwise offered.

The idea wasn't to draw a stock response, or even one in favor of any specific bias, but rather by deliberately leaving the question so vague invoke a level of uncertainty that would encourage them to clarify their position on matters.

Quote:

---

And yet it doesn't take every bad person in the world to be a threat to you when you encounter one or two. People have a right to be worried about predation or even the careless endangerment of other people without being labled paranoid.

The changes in systematic self-defense that people would have to make in their lives are more than minor, to account for the things we DO take advantage of now (law, law enforcement, judicial system) and that this is what people focus on is also not paranoid but normal.

---

While not so very sure those things are any kind of advantage, I am well aware of that point, but there's a difference between thinking the rules serve as a set of guardrails to make society run smoothly, the same way locks keep honest people honest - and thinking we're all a bunch of savage, rapacious barbarians who would destroy all of existance if the leash slipped even a little.

Too many lawmakers seem to hold the latter position, if you ask me - but given that a substantial part of my current contract with site three involves protecting them FROM the local police force, it's pretty fair to call my perspective on that more biased than usual.

Quote:

---

We once had a very interesting conversation about your vision of how an anarchist society would work and I found it convincing up to the point where you couldn't account for the concentration of many people in big cities and how that would affect stress levels and social behavior, long term.

---

That's because of the very issues raised here, which I am going to get in a bit more detail about in a moment, make it currently not viable with our level of social and emotional development.

Quote:

---

THAT was a good conversation. This one I find myself resenting you for because it's so obviously manipulative.

It robs you of some credibility to sit back and gloat about a reaction you foresaw when that reaction is NOT as irrational as you imply.

---

Actually I think you mistake me - if baiting people to actually think and react qualifies as manipulation, perhaps, but you mistake me quite a bit if you take my encouragement of folk to re-examine core beliefs as gloating.

Quote:

---

Sure, maybe hiking off into the woods is a little much, but looking at the sudden removal of rules as a social shock, especially to people who are already in a desperate situation, and recognizing it as a destabilizing factor is only realistic.

---

Very much so, VERY much so - and it is indeed this that is the very heart of the matter, because the reactions expressed (save one gleeful predator) range between mildly disturbed to outright horrified, but they ALL fall within that range, you see ?

It's not that folks are un-ABLE to leave those codified structures behind, it is also that they are un-WILLING, and that raises

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Not so much, cause I wanted folk to offer their perspectives within that window, and get them to really think about WHY they obey the "rules" and what, to them, the important ones that really MATTER, were.

---

Then why phrase the question in the way you did? Because the "rules are gone TOMORROW" aspect really only focuses attention on the sudden and unprepared disappearance of current "rule" infrastructure without anything to replace it.

Of COURSE people will anticipate an amount of chaos and react with apprehension to it.Then claiming you wanted people to think about WHY they follow rules is...not very credible. You steered people toward a particular reaction and then went all "Oh, why are you afraid of the people around you?"

Come on.

Quote:

---

Not self-fulfilling as much as focusing the discussion, and I phrased things in such a way to draw an emotional response which'd be likely a more honest one than otherwise offered.

---

But only one particular, very understandable response that you then proceeded to attack.

I can’t help but feel that if you had wanted an honest discussion, you would not have started with a hypothetical, drawn the expected reaction and then concluded that people are generally paranoid. You would have stated a thesis and invited people to discuss it. Or maybe presented a more neutral scenario, without the factor of sudden change.

Quote:

---

While not so very sure those things are any kind of advantage, I am well aware of that point, but there's a difference between thinking the rules serve as a set of guardrails to make society run smoothly, the same way locks keep honest people honest - and thinking we're all a bunch of savage, rapacious barbarians who would destroy all of existance if the leash slipped even a little.

---

And yet we have all seen riots break out when sudden shocks to the social system and lack of law enforcement occured.

You’re deliberately ignoring the practical implications of your own scenario when you accuse people of paranoia because they quite rightly anticipate the destabilisation that any sudden change often brings.

Quote:

---

Actually I think you mistake me - if baiting people to actually think and react qualifies as manipulation, perhaps, but you mistake me quite a bit if you take my encouragement of folk to re-examine core beliefs as gloating.

---

I don’t think your question was well-suited to encourage that, though. You posed a question that WOULD draw a particular answer. Then stepping in to say „Oh my, you all said this – but it’s wrong!“ (when the it really wasn’t) is not encouraging independent thought. It’s more how a demagogue would act.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Sure, maybe hiking off into the woods is a little much, but looking at the sudden removal of rules as a social shock, especially to people who are already in a desperate situation, and recognizing it as a destabilizing factor is only realistic.

---

Very much so, VERY much so - and it is indeed this that is the very heart of the matter, because the reactions expressed (save one gleeful predator) range between mildly disturbed to outright horrified, but they ALL fall within that range, you see ?

---

Because you proposed SUDDEN change! Not a more neutral situation that would allow people to examine the concept in an of itself, without the destabilizing effect of sudden change.

Quote:

---

But what CAN be done is paring down the "rules" instead of stacking more just for the purpose of making more - that we COULD do, and in my opinion, we SHOULD do - I mean, do we really *need* some of the more ridiculous and archaic stuff on the books ?
Aren't there some very valid reasons for an audit ?

---

So why not just pose that thesis and discuss it, instead of mind games? Most people would agree with you, actually, and you could have started a decent discussion without treating people like children.

Quote:

---

And now, as promised - why the discussio

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME