Complete Control of Our Lives

Post Reply New Topic

Can someone please explain how it logically possible to be in complete control of our lives?

Who said it was possible to be in 'complete control of our lives'?

Well, are you omnipotent?

If not, then it is impossible to be in complete control of your life.

After all, Chuck Norris might just one day decide to inflict collective punishment upon humanity for tolerating the existence of Justin Bieber... and roundhouse kick the Earth into a black hole... Ain't nothing you can do to prevent that...

Could Chuck Norris build a rock so big that even he (Chuck Norris) couldnt lift it?

Talk of having total control of your own life is in the end a libertarian/conservative fantasy. And why would you want to? Otherwise, when in need of help, there would be no one able to provide it.

Well, if you had total control of your own life, you would never actually be in need of help... :p

Chuck Norris can easily lift a rock built by Chuck Norris to be unable for Chuck Norris to lift.

Chuck can divide by Zero, handle the truth, slam a revolving door, touch MC Hammer and understand women. Why, then, should Chuck be deterred by something so mundane as a "paradox"?

Well my friend, you're right. None of us live in a vacuum. Assuming Free Will exists our choices that lead to positive outcomes are limited by the constraints of external entities like

a. Other people's choices especially those who are in charge
b. Laws of Space
c. Laws of Time
d. Climate of our Planet
e. A person's genetics.
f. Legal Laws
g. Social Rules
h. Laws of Physics

There are so many things that do constrain how much of our lives we truthfully control.

No it isn't.

You'll never have total control, but if you pass enough laws, and control a person's source of income, you have a lot of control.

I do most of us do have some control over our lives but some have more control than others and some are able to obtain more control than others. External constraints constrain some people and don't constrain others. There are some things that some people can't do but some of it is not absolute and some of it is absolute. Some constraints are absolute and some are not.

For example, it is impossible for a person to fly but not strictly impossible. It means we can fly but we have to have an airplane, a helicopter or some other flying contraption. We all have external constraints but not all of them are strict. We do have control over our lives but not strict control. Some people's control are closer to being strict though.

Here is a personal example concerning. I will never be able to have enough control of my life to be able to have a job again because of both internal and external circumstances. I don't believe it is strictly never though.

So conservatives and libertarians don't get a woody over the prospect of living free of dependency on others?

Impossible! It's just a scam by disgruntled control freaks who have a hard time dealing with rules. They just want to live rule free without society and if that's what they want, I recommend they move to Alaska, they will have opportunity to live rule free above the Arctic Circle in a remote area with very few, if any, neighbors. That way they can experience life with little responsibility for anyone or anything but themselves.

No one is in complete control of their lives. You just live your life the best you can and acknowledge there are certain responsibilities that go along with that.

Ana, how are you and others able to state these things without having to go through complex philosophy and logic to get to a point and yet I do? For me, it seems like I have to come up with the most complexity to understand and state these things? Why?

I can't really speak on behalf of conservatives.

Whether you depend on other people or not has nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarians believe in voluntary participation in social organizations rather than mandatory participation.

I really wish you and the other critics of libertarianism would quit with the idea that we're trying to be hermits with no social responsibilities. I keep explaining this and I'm clearly not getting through. Again, we are not opposed to having social responsibilities of our choosing. We just don't agree with forcing people to have social responsibilities.

Because it's just the way you do things