The precarity of the Law in a liberated world...

Post Reply New Topic

Any armed entity that uses force and intimidation to impose decisions that are contrary to an individual's interest in his or her physical, moral and spiritual integrity cannot be regarded as anything other than a criminal entity.

Please discuss with me about this impediment to our freedom, peace, and health.

Couldn't it be said that all of society, it's institutions, and its rules oppress most people in some way? Nature itself, and the constant battlefield of Darwinian fitness, crass haggling for status, etc. is also a massive weight everyone wears to some degree. In that landscape law enforcement represents enforcement of a legislated body of laws that with enough popular support in a liberal democracy changes over time.

In that sense I only think it's precarious when it's irritating enough people, badly enough, that the numbers are turning against the system or enough for significant foreign interference.

you're right! By golly!

It's in my interest to get boat loads of free money from the bank. So I should be allowed to rob banks, and I shouldn't have to put up with all of this armed intimidation to stop me -that society throws at me -like by having a police force, and like that!

Darwinism is an ideology. It therefore cannot be considered as a serious scientific theory.

Money is an illusion. Having boatload of money just because you want to, the top 1% of the planet already have this privilege, or right. It's not called fiat money for nothing !

I cannot contribute more to this comment right now. But,

The mere suggestion that we must tolerate injustices from artificial structures just because we believe that nature itself is unjust, it to me the joke of the day.

Mmmm, no. Darwinian game theory is the sort of thing that it actually takes a lot more effort to not find the evidence for it than to find it.


Nature itself isn't just unjust - it's positively psychopathic in all sorts of ways. That's not to say that there aren't groups of animals that don't grieve each other when they die, or elephants carrying injured animals of another species across a river with their trunks, I mean the whole framework of what survives and what doesn't - and that's before you get to some of Richard Dawkin's favorites regarding macabra brain parasites, wasps that sting caterpillars at every neural plexus to lay a larva that then eats the caterpillar in an Aliens type fashion, or you've got the African army ants that can take down elephants by climbing up their bodies and hacking their way through the animal's eardrum to then begin eating the brain.

The problem in nature is this - if it's within the laws of physics it's allowable and the only way anything survives is that it exploits whatever niche it can ahead of whatever else in its environment and then guards itself to some degree from direct predation either by sheer numbers of copies or by direct defense mechanisms. There are social situations where human beings find themselves in that situation where you can do absolutely anything to another group whether racial, religious, or economic and the only judgment that stands in the way of you doing whatever you want to another people or another group of people is either a greater threat of violence from another group - or - what you want to do to them (like parasitize their will through magic) isn't in keeping with the laws of physics.

The *only* thing as far as I'm aware that stops us from going all the way back to the jungle (without or without houses, streets, businesses, and technology) is very eyes-wide-open measurement of the human condition, realizing just how many ways it can go dark, and building whatever we can in the way of incentive structures, legal structures, civil service structures, *and* law enforcement structures, to keep the potentials for human violence and domination in a bowl where the walls are too high to get out. When you don't do that then arms races kick off and arms races write themselves - they're deals no one can refuse.

I read your point.

Well, you have a theory based upon duality.

Duality and arithmetic are cool toys to play game theory with.

Darwinism is still an ideology.

I will not articulate here a personal expression of what I consider as the influence ideologies have on vulnerable minds.

But, please consider that what you think, believe, and understand are JUST your personal opinion about what your focal point make yourself perceive.

Take care.

As are science, logic, reason, and evidence I suppose - just an opinion.

I suppose that we could do this more politely but you'd have to give some sort of counter-thesis as to what basis of reality, in your mind, gives rise to there being no need for police and how that world would function.

Before the invasion of North America by the crazymen, the populations here lived in peace and in harmony with nature and with themselves. The crazymen came, and committed the worst genocide known to humanity.

The people who lived before had no laws, and no police forces. They used communication to solve conflicts. Those who did not like who these societies worked, had to expatriate, or live as recluses.

When the crazemen came from Europe, they created war and chaos in North America. This war and chaos was useful to them, because then they could use all their criminal tactics they developed against other peoples from around the world, to subjugate the locals, steal their lands ans ressources, and then pretend "we stronger, we legitimate".

The only solution possible at present, is to RETURN to a world where the way of living of the locals pre-crazymen infection, is the NORM.

We cannot continue to support a dead system that proven times and times again that it is totally inadequate to organize human beings.

So, no police forces, no laws.

I support Minneapolis with its decision to disband its police force.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/majority-at-the-minneapolis-city-council-support-disbanding-police-force.html

So we're moving toward clarity, that's good.

A simple google search of the history of North America before colonization - whether in North, Central, or South America and especially Central, would disabuse you of the notion that there was no war between tribes.

One advantage that the native Americans in North America had was being a population of a few million or less, ie. small enough a population where constant interference competition for land and resources wasn't yet a thing and thus war between tribes - while it happened - wasn't quite as geographically forced. Population size is part of what both forced the middle east, and outward, regions both out of hunter/gather lifestyle and into landed agriculture and then further the kinds of warfare that occurred all over the middle east, Asia, and Europe were a result of too much populace to live as hunter-gatherers. North Americas, at the time, did not have this problem yet and were able to keep a lifestyle similar to the Europeans of 15,000 to 20,000 years ago living in nomadic tribes because the resource abundance made that a possibility.

This is also a large part of the tragedy of the collision of the two cultures - ie. a very highly technologically and socially leveraged culture meeting one that's experienced far less leverage is going to win any armed conflict.


It sounds like you've been reading Rousseau. Again, to suggest that there weren't heavily codified social structures, strict allegiance to the chief and elders or exile/death, and extreme demands of conformity and loyalty have generally been the way of tribal life where the head of the tribe has to be the law giver and chief executive. TBH for a tribe to run it wouldn't be practical any way. These weren't anarchist communes trying their hand at doing whatever they wanted with neighbors who could do whatever they wanted and if things didn't work out they could call someone else's police on their neighbors or, if all else failed, leave the commune and go back to urban or suburban life - this was what they had and it was a matter of survival to keep their tribes viable, in good social order, and so there couldn't be much tolerance for laziness, defection, or social difference outside of someone fit perhaps for a shamanic or lore-master type of role.


Yeah, that's the meeting of high (or in the case of the British and Chinese - higher) technologically and sociologically leveraged peoples. It also, sadly, a signal that nature doesn't care about truth or about morals, it just sees power.


So there's a name for this - it's anarcho-primitivism. Noam Chomsky was interviewed a few years back on this one and had some very short and concise thoughts on it - ie. we'd need something like 99% of the worlds population to die for that to work. That's not exactly a plan, rather it's what would happen anyway if we had such drastic collapse of civilization, massive natural disaster like asteroid or comet impact, or a global nuclear exchange, where humanity had to reboot from tribal hunters on horseback and, within enough generations, we'd be back to the kind of civilization we had in antiquity and likely be right back on track to be right back to where we are today - likely to make all of the same mistakes anew because human cultural memory tends to last little longer than the generation(s) that experienced a given event.


The only thing we can do, that isn't a massive stagger backward into the kinds of barbarism that Europe had during the dark ages and medieval times, is to keep social cohesion and keep finding ways to restructure our society, work on our understandings of mass psychology, work on ways of solving human problems, work on ending this stupid drug war that's both incarcerating all kinds of minorities and keeping Mexico in chaos, and hopefully the police and federal law enforcement become so rarely needed that you could almost start calling them the 'human trafficking task force' - because that would go from being their primary issue to just about being their only issue.


There have been all sorts of people who thought this way, go to see what happened when law left a city, and all of the things that people used to say to them that they laughed at and said 'people aren't like that' started happening. Steven Pinker was actually one of these people and got to have that experience. Obviously there's plenty to criticize with Pinker but this is one of those places where childhood anarchism got uprooted by seeing practical realities.


Except, and I don't think people are understanding this, they're not getting rid of police and laws - they're simply changing the configuration. It may help you to read the article you shared all the way to the bottom.

I did not read the authors you mentioned. I came with the same ideas independently.

The rule of the law, this principle, works when people are not awaken, when they are in some hypnotic states that put them vulnerable to influences from some human predators.

Working toward a world where the moral agency of everyone and anyone is sufficiently developed for all to share and envoy, is the only goal to be attained. The 'system', the 'law' and law enforcement, they were just a band-aid for the times to come. Now is the time !

This hobby to create and modify system to solve old and new problem is good when yo develop computer software. But transposing that to whole human societies is suspect, if not arrogant.

Here's a little video to help us smile in this time of troubles.

So the term 'awakened' probably needs to be unpacked. On one hand we do have some interesting edge cases in the US where people are opening ayahuasca clinics through religious loopholes and so far this seems to be working without any major controversy. You have Rick Doblin at MAPS (something I donate to) is working on stage III trials for psilosybin and MDMA for treating PTSD in both veterans and civilians, with the hopes of getting psychedelics removed from schedule I (high addictive capacity, no medical use) down to schedule III or IV and eventually recreational use by license - meaning that people who can use them responsibly and in pro-social ways should have the right and shouldn't have that right taken away by people who either don't have the psychological maturity for psychedelic experiences or people who have issues like schizophrenia or red-green color blindness that get exacerbated by psychedelic substances.

There are also all sorts of what could be loosely thought of as 'psychotechnologies' whether one is thinking of trance, whether one is thinking of Hindu or Buddhist varieties of meditation, or whether one is thinking more in the western direction along lines such as Solomonic magic, practices developed by the Renaissance alchemists, the Hermetic orders of the 17th and 18th century onward such as the various Rosicrucian, Martinist, and later Hermetic Golden Dawn, Crowley's A.'.A.'. and OTO, Dion Fortune's Servants of the Light, Paul Foster Case and Ann Davie's Builders of the Adytum, etc..

For whatever reason, if I've noticed anything, most people not only have next to nothing in the way of interest in these things - they have an active aversion to both these things and the people who do them, and then it's technically only 'ok' when you're going to Burma and taking selfies next to all of the Buddhas - because then you're at least signalling prestige, $$, and likely also that you're a clever fake who doesn't actually believe in any of it. All this culture really understands is social status, which comes through dominance and displays of vanity.

The other question, whether the spirit realm can or will help us fix our problems, seeing what happened across Europe, Russia, China, and Cambodia in the middle of the 20th century - my guess is no, there likely wouldn't have been a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao if the spirit world were going to help us solve our problems. That means it's either a) unable to for possibly a few of several reasons, b) a good portion of it feeds off of human trauma anyway or c) - the favorite among a lot of people here - that there's no such thing as spirits, and I'm sure most of them would add no such thing as enlightenment.


I'm sympathetic to that goal in large part because it's the only way we're likely to survive our technology. The problem - the moment a few people start gauging other people through any sort of destructive competition they set a game in motion that other people who want the same thing quite often feel like they can't refuse, and then the more people join that game the less likely it is that anyone who isn't playing that game doesn't get destroyed. We'd need something in our culture that can hammer those dynamics and break them before they start - and then on top of it we'd need to be able to do that while not getting invaded and destroyed ourselves by countries who chose to thrive on that kind of destructive competition and trained their armies like Roman phalanx or Japanese samurai.


We don't know enough about truly complex systems to do technocracy right. It's something we're still dabbling in and something we still use far too few metrics in our efforts to properly capture complex business externalities, proper accounting for the commons, etc.. We're going to have to wade through this, probably for the next few decades, and keep making sure that we're accounting for more factors and making it more difficult for people and businesses to exploit loopholes (environmental or social) to gain their margins by simply raiding resources or dumping harmful byproducts in places that we can't measure.

I cannot debate your point in details, but I agree with them.

Seeing a society like an organism with its own immune system is a good insight. Using the law like an hammer to censor any behavior contrary to the current orthodoxy is contrary to the need of society to be exposed to these fringe behaviors in order to develop a better societal immune system.

I used cannabis oil, nicotine spray, and alcohol in the past. I don't use any drugs anymore. But I used some coffee last week to recover from some brain damage caused by an abused generalist who forced be to take an antipsychotic two time in less than 24 hours.



You said that most people are not interested with these "mind expanding" substances. What I see, is that the vast majority of the people are fed up with this old system that pretend to help them and to keep things secure while in the same time is abusing them and causing chaos without any form of retribution.

This situation will not be resolved with just logic, science, or any other tricks in the bag...



... and then...




This is the end.

We don't speak French on this website. Youll have to translate all of that.

I will just traduce the last part : The Technological Singularity is Here !

For the offensive screenshot, here's where it originate : https://rambodanstonfroc.wordpress.com/2018/10/16/en-quoi-de-se-deguiser-pour-halloween/

For your attitude, there's a dedicated section on this board for discussion in any languages. It in no way means that this section is provided to segregate against posting screenshots in a non "speak white" language.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_white
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Quebec_sentiment
https://medium.com/philosophy-logic/canadian-are-not-friendly-and-they-are-fairly-racists-16c9b121765e

Eh, naturalplastic, are you autistic ?

The only part of the French-based discussion that I will traduce is the first comment :

t’as pris de l’ayahuasca?

Did you take ayahuasca?

Because the moderators are volontaires in the moderation of this board, and because I am also a volontaire in participating on this board, it will take another volontaire to do te traduction of whatever of interest for naturalplastic.

This is a good website to traduce between somme different language (better than Google or Bing): https://www.deepl.com/translator

It is fine to me that naturaplastic revealed himself or herself to be a racist and/or an arrogant provocateur.

Just trying to converse with you dude! Instead of just ignoring you the way everyone else is!

Other folks might join me in talking to you ...if you would speak in English- as I suggested that you do.

And that's the thanks I get? To be called a "racist, and arrogant, provocateur".