Posts by Edward Flores4

redtinker36 said:.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

redtinker36 said:.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

Hey there, redtinker36!

Even though you kind of answered your own question without really realizing it, I still feel like I should point this out—mostly because the obvious stuff is usually the hardest thing to actually see.

Your first question really hits on what defines a criterion, and honestly, the benchmark for philosophy is pretty straightforward—it’s all about that genuine love of knowledge. To me, discussing philosophy on a forum like this should be seen as a communicative discipline. That means, besides having a passion for learning, there has to be a standard for how we actually talk to one another. After all, even if you’re sharing "good information," if the delivery is clumsy or poorly communicated, it just ends up being a failed attempt at passing along something valuable.

Look, man—your neighbors, the Jews, Hitler, and whatever other bunch of roommates you’ve got hanging around—they might be charmingly introverted in their own weird way, but as a platform for actual communication? They’re pretty archaic and honestly just plain decadent. Philosophy is supposed to push us toward more sophisticated ways of expressing ourselves, not stripping everything down into something banal. If I remember correctly... that was the exact reason I decided to move.

Look, if what you said in that first line is actually true—you know, the whole idea that anyone who wants to step up will, and nobody is forcing anyone's hand—then I honestly don't see how the system actually messed with your plans by moving this thread to a different PDF. At the end of the day, the core principle remains exactly the same: if you want to be involved, you're in, and if you don't, nobody's going to drag you along. It’s pretty straightforward like that.

I’ve had a few of my threads moved over from the philosophy section myself—it happens—but honestly, it hasn't stopped me from jumping back into those discussions on the other PDF. I don't feel like I'm being shut out or "threatened" by the move at all; it's really no big deal.

So, look—it’s pretty obvious to me that you're really hung up on the whole label thing—you know, that deep-seated need for social acceptance and being "in." Honestly, it’s pretty clear from that second part of your post, too:

redtinker36 said:.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

Actually, you kind of answered your own second question... which was basically:

...the other part... can some totally insignificant rule actually shape me... mold me... into someone who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious things right in front of them?

Look, if you’re looking to be accepted as part of a group—and it seems pretty clear that you are—then it’s completely irrational to expect that group to bend over backward just to accommodate you. It’s a simple choice, really: either you adapt to the group, or you remain an outsider. There isn't much middle ground there.

Since we all choose to show up to this forum of our own free will, you can't really complain about "societal pressure" or people imposing standards on your fragile ego—after all, you don't *have* to be here.

You're here because you want to be, yet most of your time is spent venting about how "society" treats you... honestly, it feels like a digital version of Stockholm Syndrome at this point. 🤷

At the end of the day, your refusal to play by the communication standards of this online community, combined with your insistence on using this archaic, almost decadent way of speaking, is in direct conflict with your deep-seated need to feel accepted and "at home" here.

You can spend your time questioning our social norms until you're blue in the face, or you can sulk for another three years because a thread got moved... but either way, you'll just end up feeling just as rejected as you do right now.

If that's the path you take, then you're essentially your own worst enemy. You're forcing yourself to spend time in a place where your own behavior turns every visit into an emotional ordeal.

I think it's time to make a decision... do you actually want to be part of a "society" or not? You communicate as if you couldn't care less about belonging, yet you're constantly complaining that you aren't being embraced. 🤷

I hope that helps... even if it's a bit blunt!

James Lee77 said:I guess you could say the same thing about being an outsider. There’s actually a whole ideology centered on being an outsider, especially when it's pushed through art: think rock music (punk, Bruce Springsteen, Lou Reed, etc.), or movies (those Clint Eastwood westerns, for example). Even the big archetypal figures that shape the identity of the West have that outsider vibe: Jesus was an outsider among the Jews, Socrates among the Athenians, and Galileo among the Christians. So, an "outsider ideology" isn't just possible—it’s actually super widespread (maybe even foundational to the West).

I mean, a person can't really escape ideology as long as they have something to communicate—basically, as long as they're speaking. Because whatever they say (if they say anything at all) consists of ideas, of *logos*. You can only really rise above some ideology by understanding its terms, by grasping why it's necessary for someone in the first place. Honestly, if someone thinks an ideology is totally pointless, maybe they just haven't understood it yet—because if it were truly meaningless, it wouldn't be so successful. It's more about rising above it rather than escaping it entirely.

Look, I’m sorry... but you're honestly just talking nonsense!

Being an outsider isn't some kind of ideology—it’s just what happens when people face discrimination. Think about figures like Jesus or Socrates; they weren't out there preaching a manifesto about being outsiders, nor was it their specific belief system that pushed them to the fringes. Their "outsider status" was simply the fallout from the prejudice and primitivism of the society around them. To claim that being sidelined by discrimination is actually an ideology... well, that just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word ideology even means in the first place.

You just can't escape your own ideology as long as you’re actively mediating what you have to offer—which basically means, as long as you're still talking. I mean, think about it: everything that comes out of your mouth (assuming you're actually saying anything at all) is composed of ideas—it's pure *logos*. There isn't really any way out of that loop unless you manage to rise above it somehow. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that—it feels like a fragment of a thought left hanging there. If you were trying to get a point across or start a conversation, feel free to lay it all out for me. I’m all ears, and I don't mind if it gets a little long-winded—sometimes the best discussions need a bit of room to breathe. What's on your mind? To really get an ideology, you have to actually sit down and wrap your head around its internal logic—you have to understand its core requirements and, more importantly, why anyone would ever find it necessary in the first place. Honestly, whenever I run into someone who dismisses an entire ideology as "pointless" or "nonsense," I can't help but think they haven't actually done the work to understand it. I mean, if an ideology were truly without merit or purpose, it wouldn't be able to take root or sustain itself in the first place. It’s about learning how to rise above it rather than just trying to walk away from it.

I hope you aren't under the impression that "ideology" is just some simple mashup of "idea" plus "logos"—because, if you look at the actual roots, that suffix "-logy" implies a systematic study, a formal development, or an entire established doctrine.

Ideology—it’s one of those words that gets thrown around so much these days that it almost feels like it has lost its teeth, doesn't it? People toss it around during dinner parties or in heated Twitter threads like it's some kind of magic spell to discredit an opponent. But if you really peel back the layers, what are we actually talking about? To me, ideology isn't just a list of political demands or a set of policies tucked away in a party platform. It’s more like the lens through which you view the entire world—sort of like how a photographer chooses a specific filter to change the mood of a shot. Once you put that lens on, everything looks different. Every event, every news headline, every interaction you have with a stranger gets filtered through that specific perspective. You aren't just seeing reality; you're seeing a version of reality that has been color-graded by your core beliefs. Think of it like this: imagine two people watching the exact same baseball game at Yankee Stadium. One person sees a beautiful display of strategic skill and teamwork, while the other sees a chaotic mess of luck and overpriced concessions. They’re looking at the same diamond, the same players, and the same scoreboard, but their "ideology"—their underlying assumptions about how sports or even society should function—dictates what they take away from the experience. The danger, I think, isn't having an ideology—we all have them, whether we admit it or not—but rather when that lens becomes so thick that you can't see through it anymore. When you stop being able to recognize the validity of someone else's perspective because your own "filter" tells you they're fundamentally wrong, that's when things get messy. It turns into a closed loop where you only seek out information that reinforces what you already believe, creating this echo chamber effect that makes actual conversation nearly impossible. It’s a delicate balance, really. We need frameworks to make sense of the chaos of life, but we also need to remember to occasionally wipe the lens clean so we don't lose sight of the actual world sitting right in front of us.
Back in 1796, we saw the birth of what people called the "science of ideas." It was originally framed as a philosophy of the mind—basically, a way to derive actual knowledge through our senses rather than getting lost in the weeds of pure metaphysics. This whole concept grew out of the French term *idéologie*, which translates to the study or science of ideas. It was actually coined by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy, who mashed together the Greek root for "idea" with "-logy" to create *idéologie*. It wasn't until much later, around 1909, that we started using the phrase to describe a systematic set of doctrines or a specific collection of ideas. And if you’ve ever heard someone tossed around as an "ideologue," that term actually dates back to 1815, specifically when people were talking about the revolutionaries during the French Revolution.
When people talk about "ideology," they’re usually referring to those rigid, prescriptive doctrines—the kind of set-in-stone belief systems that don't really bother to back themselves up with actual, logical reasoning. It’s like someone trying to convince you that a specific way of life is the only right path without ever being able to explain the "why" behind it using sound logic.
D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970

Look, let's be clear about this—just because someone voices an idea doesn't mean they've suddenly stumbled into an ideology. There's a massive difference there. To me, that "-ology" suffix actually tells the whole story; it implies a systematic doctrine or a structured discipline that has been built up, layer by layer, around that initial core concept. It’s the transition from a single thought to a full-blown framework.

If you take the core premise—that we can actually cure certain ailments just by administering the right specific compound—and decide to approach that concept with actual scientific rigor and a systematic framework, then you've basically given birth to pharmacology. It’s funny when you think about it that way—every "-ology" out there essentially builds its own distinct mental map or "picture" of how the world works. The idea of reaching some kind of "perfect state"—that absolute, flawless ideal we all seem to be chasing—is a bit of a slippery concept, isn't it? It’s one of those things that sounds wonderful when you first wrap your head around it, but once you start digging into the actual mechanics of it, things get complicated fast. It’s like trying to catch lightning in a bottle, or maybe more accurately, like trying to find a perfectly quiet afternoon in the middle of downtown Chicago—it’s a beautiful thought, but reality usually has other plans. What exactly is the end goal here—what is it actually aiming for—and what kind of methodology is being used to try and make that happen? The perfect state of affairs. And that—right there—is exactly why we call it an ideology.

On the other hand—think about when Tesla first hit upon that groundbreaking idea for how to... It’s all about making things better—just a steady, incremental improvement to the way everything works. Look, when you talk about an electric motor transitioning from direct current to alternating current—and actually pulling that off through systematic research and hard work—that’s what we call innovation. It isn't some grand ideology or a political manifesto. Tesla didn't just sit around staring at a "perfect vision" of a motor in his head; instead, he looked at the tools available in those specific circumstances and figured out how to make them better. He improved the reality right in front of him.

To me, ideology is basically just any system that tries to force a specific ideal onto reality—it’s that constant, relentless push to reshape everything else to fit under its own umbrella, all in this obsessive pursuit of turning the subject of change into something "perfect."

To you, even a breakthrough from Tesla would count as ideology, which is just plain absurd. If we label absolutely everything we say as "ideology," then the word loses all its weight—it stops being useful because it fails to distinguish one thing from another.

ps: Look, if anarchy is defined as a society striving to free itself from individual ambitions and personal agendas—aiming to function without any single authority figure imposing their own "ideal" onto everyone else—then by definition, anarchy can't be an ideology!

A society like that wouldn't have a singular ideal or a unified vision for itself. After all, for a society to possess a grand vision or a blueprint for its future, there has to be an individual who carries that specific vision and idea, which is then collectively adopted as the group's shared goal.

Michael Anderson2 said:Is that statement even actually true? I mean, are there really too many of us out there?

That’s a hell of a question to dive into... honestly, it makes you wonder—are we actually overpopulating the planet, or are we just incredibly inefficient at managing the resources we have to sustain ourselves? It feels like one of those classic "chicken or the egg" dilemmas where both sides have a point, depending on how you look at the math.

When you really start digging into how resources are distributed, it’s pretty impossible to ignore one glaring truth—a tiny, minuscule fraction of people ends up swallowing up the vast majority of everything, and honestly, it almost always happens at the expense of everyone else. It’s like watching a massive feast where a handful of people at the head of the table are piling their plates high with every single dish, while the rest of the room is left just hoping for some crumbs. It’s a lopsided setup, plain and simple.

Where would even sir David Attenborough fit into this whole scenario? It really makes you wonder who the actual surplus is here—is it the majority of people who aren't spending much at all, or that tiny minority that ends up consuming the lion's share of everything?

Since we don't have any insight into what sir David Attenborough actually thinks about all this, it really leaves us wondering which side of the fence actually has the power to step up and make a move. It’s pretty much a classic divide—you’ve got this small, wealthy minority that has both the political clout and the deep pockets necessary to actually drive change or stage an intervention. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people are just trying to keep their heads above water and handle the daily grind of making ends meet. When you're stuck in survival mode, just trying to cover the basics, you don't exactly have the luxury of organizing a movement or pulling any meaningful levers of power.

Beyond that, you have to consider how hard it would be for the average working class to ever reach a consensus or find common ground on something like this—it just wouldn't happen. But that wealthy elite? They’d have no trouble at all reaching an agreement on who exactly counts as "surplus" population!

So, how do we go about reducing the population? It’s one of those massive, heavy questions that really makes you pause—sort of like staring at a complex math problem where even the simplest answer feels like it carries way too much weight. When you look at the sheer scale of things, it isn't just about numbers on a spreadsheet; it's about the entire ecosystem and how we all fit into it. If you think about it, there are a few different ways people usually approach this—some through policy, some through economics, and others through purely social shifts. For instance, looking at how education levels impact birth rates is a huge factor—it's almost like a natural stabilizer. In many parts of the US, as more people gain access to higher education and career stability, family sizes tend to shift naturally. It’s not forced; it’s just a byproduct of how society evolves. Then you have the economic side of things—how the cost of living, especially in big hubs like New York or San Francisco, acts as a sort of unintentional brake on population growth. When everything from housing to groceries at places like Walmart becomes so expensive, people naturally start thinking twice before expanding their families. It’s a slow, organic process rather than anything sudden or drastic. Of course, there are much darker, more controversial theories out there—the kind involving eugenics or extreme measures—but honestly, those ideas are fundamentally flawed and ethically bankrupt. They don't account for the complexity of human value. I guess what I'm getting at is that most sustainable "reductions" aren't about cutting numbers down aggressively, but rather about the world reaching a state of equilibrium through development, education, and economic shifts. It’s a delicate balance, much like trying to stabilize a massive pendulum—you can't just grab it mid-swing without causing a mess. You have to let the momentum settle on its own.

There really are only three ways this could play out:

If we really want to make a dent in how the world works, we have to start by shifting the global consciousness—and honestly, the most effective way to do that is through education. It isn't just about sitting in a classroom and memorizing facts; it’s about fundamentally changing how people perceive their connection to everything else. Think of it like upgrading the operating system of a computer rather than just trying to fix a single glitchy app. If you change the underlying code—in this case, our collective mindset—everything else starts to function differently. We need to foster a deep, widespread understanding that reshapes our perspective from the ground up.
Now, if we’re really looking at the extreme end of this spectrum—I'm talking about the heavy stuff—we have to consider the idea of sterilizing potential parents. Whether that means through physical procedures or biochemical means, it’s a concept that carries an immense amount of weight. It’s one of those topics that immediately pushes people toward those dark corners of history involving eugenics, which is why it feels so incredibly jarring to even bring up in a modern conversation.
3) By directly killing off potential parents or children who have already been born.

I honestly don't see any other way to look at this—it feels like we're stuck between those three specific options, or maybe some kind of hybrid blend of them. There doesn't seem to be a fourth door to walk through here.

Who actually has the bandwidth to pull off an idea like that?

With that first method, sure, everyone can technically jump in and play their part—but I really have to wonder how many people today are actually willing to make the sacrifice of not having kids just to ensure some future generation can live on this planet without constant worry. It sounds great on paper, honestly, but when you look at it from a practical standpoint? That’s a massive, heavy ask for most people. 🙂

Implementing those other two methods would require a massive amount of capital—and honestly, an even more terrifying amount of brute force. I mean, let's be real here: you can't just expect people to voluntarily line up for sterilization or choose their own demise. It’s just not how humans work. Beyond the logistical nightmare, the whole thing sounds incredibly difficult to pull off in practice.

Honestly, if you ask me, option number two is the only one that actually makes sense. We’re talking about a covert, biochemical approach to population control—essentially targeting people through their food supply, their water, and even the medications they rely on. From a technical standpoint, the capability is already there. You’ve got massive corporations with the infrastructure to manufacture these substances and slip them right into the supply chains of local retailers like Walmart. It's all part of the same machine.

Maybe they’re actually already doing this—and honestly, isn't that just what we call GMOs anyway?

Maybe sir David Attenborough had some other solution tucked up his sleeve—I mean, he’s a legend for a reason—but since he didn't actually lay it out for us... who knows, right? 🙂

Isn't this kind of idea basically opening a Pandora's box?

I don't know much about that specific box they're talking about, but honestly? I think this whole concept of population reduction is hovering right on that thin line between being a dark joke and pure, unadulterated mania.

How would religious organizations react—or maybe they already are starting to?

The Church is already playing their part in this. That’s exactly why they fight so hard against condom use in Africa—it’s a calculated move. If more people get infected, more people die, and then you have a whole new generation being born with the virus. It’s a pretty effective, albeit brutal, way to rapidly shrink the population.

What kind of philosophy—if one even exists to cover this ground—could we actually use to back up a stance like that?

I think the term people usually go with is eugenics, though I’ve always felt like calling it a "philosophy" is a bit of a stretch... to me, it feels much more like a rigid ideology than an actual school of thought.

I think we can actually find some philosophical ground to stand on with Option 1—you know, focusing on education and encouraging people to voluntarily participate in stabilizing the population. It’s an interesting angle because it moves away from coercion and instead looks at empowering individuals to make those choices for themselves.

Everything else really boils down to a whole bunch of variables we haven't even touched on yet. If you want to get into the ethics of it, you could easily argue that bringing children into a world defined by widespread poverty is actually incredibly irresponsible—and honestly, it is. It’s just plain irresponsible. We see it all the time in the statistics: the most impoverished families tend to have the largest number of kids, largely because they view them as extra hands to help with labor. From my perspective, that's just fundamentally immoral, reckless, and selfish behavior.

Another example you see is how Palestinians fight back against occupation through sheer demographics. Their whole strategy is essentially to outpace Israelis through birth rates, hoping to eventually shift the balance and become the majority population. But when you step back and look at it, using children as a strategic tool in a political struggle—well, it’s pretty brutal (if I’m being honest).

The real dilemma isn't just about finding a solution—it’s more about the "how." How do you actually step up and fix things without falling into that same trap of being just as selfish or unethical as the people who caused the mess in the first place? It's a tough balancing act, really—trying to navigate the fallout while keeping your own moral compass pointing north.

How do you think people would actually react?

It doesn't really matter. Honestly, if they start pushing back or reacting, that’s your proof right there—it means none of it is actually happening. Look, there isn't enough raw power on this planet to force something like that through sheer strength alone. It’s pretty simple, really: either people do it voluntarily, or it happens behind our backs without us ever knowing... there just isn't a third option.

So, I’ve been chewing on this one for a while now—how many people is actually "optimal"? It sounds like such a simple question on the surface, right? But once you start peeling back the layers, it gets incredibly complicated depending on what you're actually trying to achieve. If we’re talking about a small startup or a tight-knit group of friends heading out on a road trip through the Rockies, the "optimal" number is small. You want that high-energy, everyone-is-on-the-same-page kind of vibe. Think of it like a small dinner party at a local bistro—if you have four or five people, the conversation flows perfectly. Everyone can hear each other, nobody feels left out, and you can actually build some real momentum. But then, you look at things from a different angle—say, the scale of a massive corporation like Amazon or a huge metropolitan area like Chicago. At that level, "optimal" shifts entirely toward systems, infrastructure, and how much complexity a structure can handle before it starts to buckle under its own weight. In those scenarios, more people means more specialized talent, which is great, but it also means you need way more layers of management just to keep the lights on. It really comes down to the specific goal you're chasing. Are you looking for intimacy and speed, or are you looking for sheer, unadulterated scale? There isn't one magic number that fits every situation—it’s all about finding that sweet spot where you have enough hands to get the work done, but not so many that you spend all your time just trying to coordinate the meeting to talk about the work.

Go ahead and ask right here:
If you’ve ever found yourself wandering through the halls of Rockefeller University, you know there’s a certain kind of quiet intensity there—that specific, focused energy you only find at top-tier research institutions. It’s one of those places where the air feels heavy with actual discovery, not just textbook theory. I was looking into their recent work lately, and it really puts things into perspective. When you think about the sheer scale of medical breakthroughs coming out of a single campus in New York City, it’s almost hard to wrap your head around. We often talk about "science" as this broad, monolithic concept, but it’s actually made up of these incredibly granular, painstaking efforts—people staring at petri dishes or sequencing genomes until they find that one tiny anomaly that changes everything. It reminds me a bit of how we look at massive tech hubs like Silicon Valley; you have these concentrated pockets of genius where if you put enough brilliant minds in the same zip code, the ripple effects can eventually touch every corner of the globe. Whether it's tackling complex diseases or understanding the very building blocks of life, the work happening at places like Rockefeller is essentially the engine room for modern medicine. It’s slow, it’s difficult, and most of it happens behind closed doors, but it’s why we don't die from things that were death sentences fifty years ago.

From what I gather, those folks were running all their calculations through their own "Biomedical Institute for Human Welfare"—which, if you can believe it, is actually their official title.

Could we be looking at a situation where efforts to limit reproduction actually become irreversible? It’s one of those heavy questions that stays with you—the idea that once you start pulling certain threads in the social fabric, you might not be able to weave them back together again. I can't help but wonder if there's a point of no return where the biological or societal momentum shifts so far in one direction that we lose the ability to course-correct. It feels like a delicate balancing act, doesn't it? One wrong move, one permanent policy shift, and we might find ourselves stuck in a new reality without an exit strategy.

If we’re talking about something that’s purely biochemical—something rooted deep in a genetic mutation—then yeah, you're absolutely right. For anyone who's been sterilized, there wouldn't be any going back from that. It would be a permanent, irreversible situation.

Who exactly is responsible for that whole "go out and multiply" philosophy? It’s one of those ideas that seems to pop up everywhere, but I can't quite pin down where the core sentiment actually started.

Some idiot is just completely obsessed with this paranoid, tribalistic religious mindset. It’s the exact same playbook you see with groups like the Palestinians, where they’re basically just trying to brute-force their way to dominance through sheer numbers.

Has that kind of philosophy been the driving force throughout all of human history? And if so, why?

Not really. It’s actually a relatively recent development—unless you want to argue that our biological inheritance counts as a philosophy itself.

Did that mindset actually back us into a corner?

Honestly, no. We didn't get backed into a corner by that ideology—we did it to ourselves through sheer shortsightedness and by swallowing certain mainstream narratives whole without ever stopping to ask the hard questions. But, if you look at it indirectly? Then yeah, absolutely.

electrictiger70 said:

Edward Flores4 As stated by silentnomad23:
No! It would be much better if you were the one to explain it to me. 😁

Dušto... that’s what you call inspiration, or perhaps an ideal. 😉

Actually, no—authority isn't strictly a political concept. It manifests in so many other ways. You have authority within a family, personal authority, interpersonal dynamics, and all those various layers in between.
What I’m really trying to get at here is that you seem to accept certain sets of ideas without any real scrutiny. You just take them as gospel. Because of that, I find myself questioning whether a society could actually function without some form of political authority to hold things together.

Give me a break. Did society—or even the individual—not exist long before the written word or the arrival of the Gutenberg printing press? It was only much later that we saw the emergence of modern concepts like authorship, authority, and the rule of law.

Are you seriously suggesting that social institutions and some form of political authority didn't exist before the Gutenberg printing press? That’s just not how history works. They certainly existed; they simply weren't organized in the specific way we recognize within the framework of a modern state. I don't feel the need to sit here and list them all out for you...

Just because his vision for how society should function was different doesn't mean his core argument misses the mark or lacks relevance. He identified the fundamental issue perfectly, and that's really all that matters. Others have since taken that initial concept and expanded upon it—I honestly don't see the problem there.

Does it even matter? At the end of the day, what actually counts is the substance of what was said, not the identity of the person speaking. 😉

Fair enough, but I felt compelled to mention who actually said it... just so everyone is on the same page. 😁

It isn't really an issue if you are living within a community. A society that actually operates on a foundation of ethics provides a far superior benchmark than any single individual authority ever could. Ethics are remarkably straightforward and crystal clear; they are principles that anyone can apply to their own life. Because of that, we simply have no need for an authority figure to dictate them to us.

And who exactly came up with this whole concept of ethics? Did it just drop out of the sky? Behind it, there’s always some supposed authority figure standing there. Even the very notion of enforcing such an ethical code presupposes the existence of a social authority.
Perhaps you're thinking strictly in terms of political authority, which might be why we aren't seeing eye to eye on this.

What exactly is stopping me from just laying hands on you if I take issue with your actions? Have you even bothered to watch the news lately, or perhaps catch up on the crime reports?

That’s a bit of a generalization, isn't it? Sure, crime statistics can look grim, but what kind of actual percentage are we talking about here? Beyond that, there are legal consequences now for when someone hits you with a baseball bat. The entire concept of the modern state is built on this fundamental idea: you delegate the authority to punish those who violate social norms, ethics, or basic standards of conduct. Now, I’ll be the first to admit this system isn't perfect. Institutions can become corrupt, or they might start acting solely in the interest of powerful special interests and lobbyists. But at the same time, this structure is exactly what allows you to walk down a street feeling relatively secure, knowing you aren't part of that small fraction of violent incidents. If we move away from that, who exactly would guarantee that sense of security for you?

The law only penalizes violence AFTER it has already happened. That means the law doesn't actually protect you from being harmed at all. In reality, the legal system is just a confession that we don't know how to address the root causes of our problems; we merely sanction the fallout while the underlying issues persist.

You have a point there... but that doesn't necessarily mean our current institutions are worthless. It just means they need a complete overhaul.

Anarchy isn't unregulated chaos. It is highly structured, and honestly, not that different from the systems we navigate today. The fundamental difference lies in the absence of centralized power, corporate ownership, and individual political authorities.

I still find that impossible to believe. Even if you managed to build some sort of decentralized society, people will inevitably gravitate toward individual authorities. Someone will emerge as a local leader everyone seeks advice from; someone else will be the brother of the person ensuring the gears turn—if you even claim it's "regulated." From there, it is just a short step to actual political power.

Of course not... those debates would only happen in small-town diners or local coffee shops. You would only cast a vote for decisions that directly impact you, like your specific job or community matters. Since we live in a digital age, voting would simply boil down to clicking a button, and the results would be completely transparent. In fact, it would be much simpler, more efficient, and cheaper than the cumbersome system we have now.

Is there an actual, detailed, proven blueprint for how this would function, or are we just talking about abstract ideals?

The prevailing option is whatever the majority decides. It’s that simple. But again—you clearly don't grasp what anarchy actually entails, which makes this discussion pointless. Anarchy is a system where the workers themselves own the factory and, as such, hold the decision-making power.

Right now, you have no rights at all—not even the basic constitutional protections you should be entitled to, like the right to work or the right to fair compensation for that labor.

I don't understand anarchy because I don't find its core tenets logical. It seems to me that you don't quite grasp the distinction between normative theory and actual reality either.

A formal social structure is not the same thing as an informal one, and informal structures cannot exist without some kind of center of power emerging somewhere 🤷. Even in a world where the workers own the factory, that becomes the formal structure, and beneath it, informal power centers will always form. We have seen this play out before, and it always happens. You can't avoid it. That is why I say, if you could actually produce a concept that works in practice—which I highly doubt—I would be the first to hand you a Nobel Prize.

There’s a massive distinction between looking up to someone as a personal authority—someone you actually respect or learn from—and simply acknowledging the political authority of a stranger who holds power over you. I’m strictly talking about that second scenario here. Honestly, having personal heroes or people we look up to isn't the issue at all.

Moving forward... what exactly do you mean when you say you aren't sure if that's even possible? It doesn't really mean anything... does it?

You can't really know if something is doable until you actually get out there and try it—it’s just one of those things. If you run into some real, tangible roadblocks along the way, then by all means, lay them out on the table. I'm all for troubleshooting. But honestly? Just sitting there being skeptical doesn't really count as a valid argument. It doesn't move the needle.

Are you suggesting that before the Gutenberg printing press came along, social institutions and some sort of political authority just didn't exist?

That’s exactly it. Back then, everything really just boiled down to whoever had the most muscle. A king only held authority because he had the power to wipe out any opposition in his path. It wasn't like anyone actually voted for him or even gave him their respect—he just forced his rule on everyone through sheer intimidation. And honestly, if you have to use force to make people follow you, that isn't true authority at all.

When we talk about "authority," what we’re really talking about is someone claiming ownership over an idea—say, a specific political platform they want to push through. They pitch those ideas, and if people buy in, they get their votes. But here’s where the real issue starts: that act of voting is essentially just a collective nod of approval, a way for voters to say, "Okay, we recognize your authority now." And honestly? That’s exactly where things go sideways. Once that happens, the entire direction of society ends up being steered by one person’s private ambitions and individual philosophies. The scary part is that the public—the very people being led—has absolutely zero window into how those ideas actually work behind closed doors. We don't get a real chance to peek under the hood, let alone audit or correct those personal whims once the politician is already in power. It's like handing someone the keys to a car without ever getting to see the engine or check the brakes.

Honestly, instead of getting caught up in picking specific personalities or cults of personality, we really ought to be choosing between options that are actually transparent and grounded in reality—you know, things that can actually be implemented. We need policies that focus on moving society forward as a whole, rather than just serving the interests or egos of a few individuals.

And who exactly came up with this whole idea of ethics—did it just drop out of thin air one day?

Look, nobody just cooked this up out of thin air. Ethics isn't some flight of fancy or a collection of lofty, unreachable ideals—it’s much more grounded than that. At its core, ethics is built on the principle of reciprocity. Think of it like a finely tuned engine or a well-oiled machine where every single component has to pull its weight; it’s about that mutual, shared responsibility within the entire system to keep everything running smoothly.

It’s the same story with her—she’s leaning on some kind of external authority to back her up. But honestly, once you look past that, the very concept of enforcing this kind of ethics is built on the assumption that social authority actually exists in the first place. It's all tied together.

I don't know about that. Honestly, I think an ethical society just naturally corrects its own deviations without needing some massive, heavy-handed authority to step in and force things. It’s much simpler than people make it out to be—a healthy community just doesn't have any appetite for irresponsibility or intolerance. It self-regulates.

I honestly feel like society shouldn't have to play babysitter—if someone chooses to be completely irresponsible, then they should just face the music. It’s pretty simple, really: if you act recklessly and I step in to bail you out, I’m essentially subsidizing that bad behavior. At that point, I’m being just as irresponsible as you are by enabling it. Support systems, like access to work or steady paychecks, shouldn't be used to cushion people who refuse to take accountability for their own lives. It’s basic math.

Maybe you’re thinking strictly in terms of political authority—which might be why we aren't quite seeing eye to eye here.

I mean, isn't it just common sense that anarchism is fundamentally about tackling political authority? I don't get why people act like it’s some vague social theory—at its core, it's about deconstructing the power structures that try to run our lives. What on earth would your own personal authorities have to do with how society functions as a whole? It's two completely different things.

The whole concept of the modern state really boils down to one central thing—you’re essentially handing over the authority to punish anyone who steps out of line. It’s about delegating that power to the government to sanction people for breaking certain rules, whether we're talking about legal codes, social norms, or even those unwritten standards of public morality. It’s like giving someone else the keys to the disciplinary system, trusting them to decide what counts as "wrong" and how much it should cost you to break those rules.

See, this is exactly what I mean... you delegate "someone else" to tackle a problem that we personally don't even want to deal with, and the end result is just pure, unadulterated stupidity. Instead of us actually holding one another accountable—you know, looking out for each other like a community should—we just outsource all that responsibility to "the law" and various repressive government agencies. It’s a total mess.

If society stopped constantly rewarding and enabling irresponsibility, we’d honestly be dealing with a hell of a lot fewer problems. But that’s the thing—people actually *crave* being irresponsible. They don't want to shoulder the weight of making their own calls or holding up their end of the bargain with everyone else in the community. It just feels too heavy, you know? It’s much easier to just "delegate" those tough decisions to someone else—to hand off the responsibility—and then act completely blindsided when that person ends up using you as a stepping stone for their own selfish ambitions. People wonder why they got burned, but they practically handed over the matches and asked for a light. 😁

Honestly... if I wanted to design the most foolish, inefficient system imaginable, I don't think I could do a better job than what we’re dealing with right now. It’s just fundamentally broken—not even from a theoretical standpoint. When you start validating false, delegated authority, you effectively kill any incentive for people to actually take responsibility for themselves. It strips away the need for personal accountability and stops anyone from truly participating in the decisions that shape our society.

Look, maybe this whole system isn't exactly a masterpiece of perfection—I mean, let’s be real, any government agency can fall prey to corruption or start pulling strings just to serve certain power brokers and special interest groups. That’s just how things work sometimes. But at the same time, there's a practical side to it: this structure is what allows you to walk down a street in a city like Chicago or Philly feeling relatively secure. In those 90% of situations where nobody is looking for trouble, it’s this very framework that keeps things steady. If we didn't have these institutions in place to provide that baseline of order, who else would actually step up and guarantee that kind of safety for you?

Why do people even bother with killing and stealing in the first place? It’s a question that gets me thinking late at night—this fundamental glitch in our nature. Think about bees or termites for a second. They build these incredibly intricate, highly organized "societies," right? They have complex structures and roles that keep everything running smoothly, yet they don't need a written legal code or a massive police force to keep them from tearing each other apart. There isn't some central authority hovering over them, ready to throw them in a cell if they step out of line. They just... exist in harmony within their own systems. So, why is it different for us? Why can't we find that same level of natural equilibrium without needing an entire apparatus of laws and enforcement to keep the peace? It makes you wonder if we missed something fundamental in our evolution, or if our complexity just comes with a much darker set of baggage.

Whenever a disaster hits and our social institutions basically fall apart, you see this incredible thing happen—human cooperation and genuine solidarity just bubble to the surface immediately. It’s actually pretty beautiful to watch. But there's this weird catch: as soon as someone is officially "delegated" or "put in charge" of the relief efforts, we all suddenly feel like we don't have a single obligation to step up. We start delegating our own sense of responsibility to others... essentially outsourcing our conscience so someone else can be the one held accountable. Honestly, it's such a fundamentally stupid way to look at life. 🙂

I mean, you’ve got a point there... but I don't think that necessarily means everything we've built within our institutions is worthless. It’s more like—think of it like an old house that needs a serious structural overhaul. The foundation might still be solid, but the wiring is shot and the plumbing is a mess. We don't need to tear the whole thing down and start from scratch; we just need to go through with a fine-tooth comb and really revise how they operate.

Look, I don’t think we need to tear everything down and start from scratch—institutions can definitely stay—but they absolutely have to become secondary to society. Think of them more like a support crew rather than the main event. Ideally, institutions should only step in to handle those complex, messy issues that a community simply can't resolve on its own. Beyond that? They need to be directly accountable to the people, and their entire operation needs to be 100% transparent. It shouldn't feel like a black box where decisions happen behind closed doors; it should be an open book.

I still can’t quite wrap my head around the idea that we could actually pull off some kind of decentralized society. It just feels out of reach—honestly, I think humans are hardwired to seek out an individual authority figure, no matter how much we talk about autonomy. We have this deep-seated tendency to look for someone at the top to tell us what's what, almost like it's baked into our DNA. Even if you designed a perfect, distributed system from scratch, people would likely just end up gravitating toward some central leader or power player anyway. It's a tough cycle to break.

We’re essentially talking about the centralization of power—both political and economic—where a handful of individuals exert control over everyone else. To me, society isn't some machine you can just tune up; it’s an organic, living thing. Because of that, there’s no such thing as a "one size fits all" decision—no single policy is ever going to satisfy every different layer of the community at once. Honestly, this whole obsession with centralization feels like madness to me. It's a relic of the Industrial Revolution, born from that outdated mindset of thinking everything should run like a factory assembly line or a giant gear in a wheel.

Honestly, a system like this just doesn't cut it anymore—it’s completely out of sync with the digital and electronic age we’re living in today. It feels totally unsustainable, especially when you consider how fast everything moves now. If we don't see some serious changes coming down the pipeline soon, I really don't see how it's going to survive.

Is there actually a clear, detailed, battle-tested blueprint for how this would all work in practice—like a real roadmap—or are we all just tossing around high-level, abstract concepts at this point?

I’ve always felt that every "open source" project is essentially a little pocket of micro-anarchy—and honestly, so far, they all seem to be working beautifully. Take Wikipedia, for instance; it’s just one prime example of a much larger phenomenon. Wherever you find people acting with a sense of personal responsibility toward one another and moving in sync with a shared goal, you just don't need "official authority" or those heavy-handed, repressive structures to keep things running. It just works.

I honestly feel like you're missing the mark here too—it seems like there’s a bit of a disconnect in how you're viewing the gap between normative theory and how things actually play out in the real world.

I’m pretty damn sure about that. 🙂

Look, we really need to distinguish between formal social structures and informal ones—they aren't even in the same ballpark. You can have all the official rules and hierarchies you want, but an informal structure doesn't just exist in a vacuum. It won't function without some kind of central power base forming somewhere along the line. It’s like trying to run a neighborhood watch without anyone actually stepping up to lead the charge; eventually, someone is going to emerge as the focal point, whether there's an official title attached to them or not. Power tends to gravitate toward a center, even in the most casual settings.

That’s just total nonsense. If that were actually true, it would mean there had to be some kind of "formal structure" in place from the very beginning—without which an "informal" society could never have even started to take shape in the first place. It's a bit of a circular argument, isn't it?

Actually, if you think about it... we only really started "formalizing" everything once the Gutenberg press came along. Before that, social structures and norms were almost entirely informal. This whole idea of strict "formality" is actually a pretty recent invention—it's a relatively new addition to the human toolkit. For the vast majority of our history, society operated through much more fluid, unofficial channels.

Look, if we actually reach a point where the workers themselves own the factory—where the people doing the heavy lifting are also the ones calling the shots—it’s not going to mean that hierarchy just vanishes into thin air. Sure, on paper, it’ll look like a flat, democratic structure, but let's be real for a second: humans are wired for organization. Even in a system designed for total equality, you're still going to see informal power structures start to bubble up underneath the official surface. It’s almost inevitable. We've seen this play out before in various organizations, and honestly, it's just part of how groups function. You might have the "official" leadership meetings, but then you'll have those unofficial circles where the actual influence sits—those little pockets of true authority that operate behind the scenes. It’s a pattern that keeps repeating itself, no matter how much you try to formalize things.

We never had anything even remotely close to that here. We used to have this whole "worker self-management" setup at our factories, but let’s be real—there was always this massive political authority looming over everything, and they always had the final say. The workers might get a small vote on things like holiday bonuses or local union perks, but when it came to actually running the factory, managing the city, or steering the country? They weren't even allowed to comment on those decisions, let alone participate in them. It was an illusion of control, really. 🙂

So, when you strip everything away, we’re really looking at the same old dilemma—it’s just swapped out socialism for capitalism. At the end of the day, as long as there's some kind of political authority calling the shots, the core issue doesn't actually change. It’s the same fundamental struggle, regardless of which economic label they slap on it.

Look, there’s just no dodging it—that’s why I’m saying if you could actually sit down and map out a blueprint for this that wouldn't immediately fall apart in the real world (which, let's be honest, I highly doubt), I’d be the first one handing you a Nobel Prize for it.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone already scooped up a Nobel Prize for figuring this out—it’s just that actually putting the theory into practice is a different beast entirely. Most people are driven by raw ambition and a lack of accountability, and let's be real, most of them have no intention of changing that nature.

It’s the same logic you see in any non-profit or "open source" organization. The moment a system fails to provide a way for individuals to chase their own profit or fulfill their personal ambitions, you end up with corruption and abuse becoming the default setting. It's practically built into the DNA.

When a society decides to "delegate" power by funneling people into central hubs where the potential for profit and influence is at its absolute peak... well, that tells you everything you need to know about how that society was designed from day one. It's essentially built on the assumption that people are inherently corruptible and irresponsible. I mean, anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together wouldn't organize a civilization that way unless that was the intended outcome. 😉

electrictiger70 said:It is truly wonderful to be so young and fueled by such idealism 😍

So, let us say, for instance, that I sit down with these individuals in need and tell them, "Look, guys, it is time to step up; we are cutting off your assistance effective immediately, so deal with it however you can."

Suppose we are operating within that anarchist social structure.

Consider the possibility that, among the population, there are people who lack the will, the motivation, the desire, or even the physical means to provide for themselves. What happens next?

Do we just sit on our side of town and wait for the people on the other side to start starving to death? Do we pretend this isn't a societal issue until the starvation becomes so widespread that it forces our hand, at which point the entire group suddenly feels a wave of moral disgust? (The whole scenario keeps reminding me of that movie beach, I have a feeling a social system like that would end up in much the same way..)
And all of this because the theory we started with failed to account for these types of people.

You simply cannot assume that every single person wants to take full responsibility for themselves, nor can you assume that such a system would function without any form of regulation. It is like assuming every person is inherently altruistic and willing to share everything, so I abolish private property while refusing any form of oversight. Then, inevitably, a few people emerge who aren't wired that way, and within a month, we have chaos. Within two months, when people are fighting in the streets and burning down each other's houses, the entire concept collapses.

I am not saying that people are inherently evil or anything of the sort. I am merely stating that you cannot build a social order based on such a narrow view of human nature. At least, not one that lacks some form of regulation.

I have gathered the impression that you struggle to grasp political issues because you focus solely on problems affecting your immediate surroundings, which prevents you from seeing the broader picture.
In short—if the political climate is a certain way, it is because the majority believes it is acceptable or they lack a better alternative. To claim that the status quo is fixed and cannot be improved significantly suggests that you value public opinion more than your own convictions (or perhaps you just lack better ideas).
Just because a majority holds a certain belief does not mean they are right. If the majority is doing something wrong, it does not mean you should follow suit. But I feel I am becoming tedious; it seems we are not even discussing the same thing anymore.
The situation can change—it is vital to know what you are striving for—and of course, it won't transform overnight.

I have come to the conclusion that you simply fail to grasp the core of the matter, which is why you are now attempting to deflect this conversation to another thread. At no point did I claim that the current status quo is acceptable or that it cannot and should not be transformed. 🤷

It appears I will ultimately have to address the concept of authority 😍

And do you even comprehend what authority entails? Authority is not limited to a single person; it can be the authority of an institution, of law, or of morality. It can even be an idea that takes root in your mind until it becomes a moral authority—a source from which you draw your behavioral guidelines.

By refusing to recognize the authority of this society, you are actually acknowledging the authority of non-recognition itself, making that specific brand of freedom just as illusory. Even the act of following a particular ideology regarding social organization constitutes an acknowledgment of some authority—in this instance, the authority of an anarchist society. You may not perceive it that way, but you have merely swapped one form of authority for another.

The entire notion of a lack of authority sounds quite elegant, but it is unworkable. Without recognizing some form of authority, a society cannot exist, and it remains highly questionable whether an individual can exist at all.

Furthermore, I must admit that citing Voltaire—who believed the finest form of social organization was enlightened despotism—is somewhat jarring when placed in a context intended to support a system that advocates for the dismantling of all authority.

To acknowledge authority is to simultaneously admit that we are incapable of looking after ourselves.

Who says?

And to refuse to acknowledge authority is to live in a universe where you are your own sole moral compass (it is quite peculiar that anarchist philosophy emerged alongside the extremes of liberal individualism).😍) . And honestly, what would that even look like? It’s a ridiculous premise—I don't like what you're doing, so I'll hit you with a rock, and you hit me back with a club until we both end up dead (and probably take some bystanders with us), all because the rest of the crowd hasn't officially voted yet? Because apparently, in a pure democracy, nobody can touch anyone else until everyone has cast a ballot to stop the fight. 😍

Governments and politicians are essentially just babysitters for a mass population that behaves like a group of irresponsible teenagers on a collective level. As long as we act this way, it’s obvious we need a sitter. This dynamic ALWAYS leads to the same result: the moment there is a demand for "corrective authority," political ambitions arise within the very individuals who are least qualified to handle the job and who won't hesitate to use any means necessary to satisfy their own egos.

Once people finally wake up from this period of collective adolescence and realize that politics and democracy are nothing more than fairy tales akin to Santa Claus and woodland sprites—that is when we will see true anarchy, or perhaps a society truly free from the whims of individual willpower!

What does it actually mean to say "we aren't capable of taking care of ourselves"? We aren't, really. How could we possibly manage ourselves in a system of over 330 million people without some form of regulation? Would every single day, someone like Joe from a small town in Ohio and I would have to meet in the town square to vote on whether we need to change a lightbulb at the local library or fix a streetlamp in a suburb? Then we'd have to vote on whether to lower the sales tax. Then we'd debate whether the Federal Reserve should raise interest rates. Then we'd have to sit around explaining the concept of interest rates to Joe...😁
And once we actually reach a decision, who enforces it? Who steps up and says, "Alright, this is the ruling"? Isn't that person, simply by virtue of their position, already standing above everyone else?
And there you have it: one person sitting higher in the hierarchy than the rest. There are our social powers. And once again, it all falls apart. Are we just spinning in circles, or is it just my perception? 🤔

If you can come up with a way for complex social systems to function as rapidly as they do today while allowing every single individual within that system to participate in every decision (and feel free to explain how you'd motivate every single person to actually bother deciding), then maybe we can talk. If you actually pull that off, you'll likely walk away with a Nobel Prize 😍. But even then, you're still left with the problem of regulating the decision-making process itself. So, we find ourselves right back at the beginning 😁.

I agree that modern institutions are functioning far from optimal—"far from it" is an understatement—but the notion that a society can exist without some form of regulation and institutional structure is quite an illusion.

Honestly? No way. Why don't you be the one to explain it to me then? 😁

It could just be an idea—something that takes root in your mind and eventually becomes a sort of moral authority, providing you with a blueprint for how to act.

Dušto... that’s just called inspiration or having an ideal.😉

By simply following some specific vision of social organization, you're essentially acknowledging an authority—in this case, the authority of an anarchist society. You might not see it that way, but you've really just swapped one type of authority for another.

That’s just your take.

This whole concept of "no authority" sounds great on paper, but it's completely unworkable in practice.

Unworkable for whom... you?

Society can't exist without some form of recognized authority, and frankly, I doubt an individual can either.

Oh, please. Didn't societies—and individuals—exist long before writing or the invention of the Gutenberg printing press? It was only much later that concepts like authorship, authority, and law even emerged as we know them today.

True, and I have to admit, quoting Voltaire—who believed the best social structure was enlightened despotism—feels a bit jarring when used to support a system that advocates for tearing down all authority.

Just because he envisioned a different kind of society doesn't mean his point isn't hitting the nail right on the head, or that it isn't relevant. He identified the core issue, and honestly, that's what matters. Others have taken that idea and built upon it since; I don't see any problem with that!

Who said that?

Does it even matter? What matters is the substance of the argument, not who happened to say it.😉

If you refuse to acknowledge any kind of authority, you’re basically choosing to live in a vacuum—a tiny little universe where you're the only moral compass left on the map. It’s like trying to navigate a massive, complex city without street signs, laws, or even a basic sense of direction; eventually, you realize that if you're the only one setting the rules, then "right" and "wrong" just become whatever mood you happen to be in that day. Without some external standard to lean on, you aren't actually being free—you're just drifting in total isolation.

I mean, it’s not like we live in a vacuum—we live in a society. And honestly, a community that actually operates on a foundation of ethics is a much better North Star than any single individual in a position of authority. Ethics themselves are pretty straightforward and clear-cut; they’re principles anyone can step up and apply in their own life. Because of that, we don't really need some big, central authority figure breathing down our necks to tell us how to behave.

So, I was just sitting here thinking—how would that even work in practice? It’s a wild concept to wrap your head around. Imagine if the logic went like this: "I don't like what you're doing, so I'm going to take a shot at you with a rock," and then you respond by hitting me back with a sledgehammer, and we just keep going until we've both killed each other—and probably a few bystanders along the way. The kicker, though—the part that really trips me up—is the idea that we shouldn't even touch one another unless the rest of society has officially stepped in to vote on it. It assumes that nothing can happen unless there's some massive, collective consensus reached through a formal vote to stop us. In a world where everyone has to decide together before anyone can intervene, we'd just be left in this endless loop of violence while waiting for a committee to reach a decision. It feels totally disconnected from how actual human action works in the real world.

What exactly is stopping me from just decking you if I don't like what you're doing? Seriously—have you even been watching the news lately, or maybe scrolling through some true crime feeds? People are losing it out there.

The law only steps in to punish violence after the damage is already done—which basically means the law doesn't actually protect you from being victimized in the first place. It’s kind of like trying to fix a leaky pipe by just mopping up the floor every time it floods; you aren't stopping the leak, you're just reacting to the mess. In a way, our legal system acts more like a confirmation that we have no idea how to tackle the root causes of these issues. We just end up penalizing the aftermath while the actual problem continues to simmer right under the surface.

What does it actually mean when people say "we aren't capable of taking care of ourselves"? Honestly, maybe we aren't. I mean, how on earth could we possibly manage to look after one another in a system involving something like 330 million Americans without some kind of regulation or structure in place? It just wouldn't work.

People always seem to get anarchy wrong. They picture this chaotic, swirling mess where everything just falls apart, but that’s not it at all. Anarchy isn't actually unregulated—it’s incredibly well-structured. In many ways, it wouldn't even feel that different from the systems we navigate every single day in the States. The real distinction—the thing that actually changes the game—is simply the absence of centralized power. Once you strip away the concept of corporate ownership and those top-down political authorities that dictate how we live, you're left with something entirely different. It's about moving away from that singular, commanding force and toward something more organic.

You really ought to do some actual digging before jumping in like this—you're basically just arguing from a place of pure assumption at this point.

Every single day, Pero—who lives over in a suburb like maybe Naperville—and I meet up downtown. We just stand there in the middle of the plaza, raising our hands to cast a vote on whether we actually need to swap out a lightbulb in the local deli or if we should wait until we get back home to the suburbs.

Of course not... that kind of conversation would only ever happen in some random dive bar in a small Midwest town or a quiet suburb outside of Chicago. You’re only going to raise your hand for decisions that directly impact you—your paycheck, your job, your own backyard, stuff like that. Since we're living in the digital age anyway, "raising your hand" would really just mean clicking a button, and the voting results would be completely transparent. Honestly, it would be way simpler, more efficient, and a whole lot cheaper than this clunky system we're stuck with right now.

Look, before we try to explain what an interest rate actually is to someone like Perry, we really need to break down the fundamentals first...😁
Even when we finally land on a decision, there’s always that lingering question hanging in the air—who actually steps up to pull the trigger? Who is the one standing there saying, "Alright, this is the call, and it's final"? It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Because the very moment someone claims the authority to declare a decision valid, they aren't just making a choice—they're essentially placing themselves above everyone else by virtue of their position. It’s a bit of a paradox, really.

Look, we can just go with whatever option most people are voting for—it’s the easiest path forward, honestly. But I have to say it again—you clearly don't quite grasp what anarchy actually means, which makes this whole debate feel a bit like running in circles. To me, anarchy isn't chaos; it's a system where the people actually doing the work—say, the folks on the factory floor—are the ones who own the place and hold all the decision-making power.

Right now, you’re basically left without any recourse—not even those fundamental constitutional protections you’d expect, like the right to work or the right to be compensated for that work.

I’d really suggest checking out that interview I linked earlier in the thread. Honestly, I’m not really in the mood to give a full-blown lecture on self-governance—it's a lot to unpack—so you might as well see what Noam Chomsky has to say about it instead. Of course, if you end up thinking he’s totally off base, you can always shoot him an email yourself 🙂

Zachary Turner6 said:Not quite. Sure, there are downsides, but there are benefits too. That said, when you're trying to judge the actual quality of a concept, I've always found it much more telling to scrutinize its flaws than to dwell on its perks.

I look at anarchy (even though—and I should clarify—I am not an anarchist) as a "positive." It is for something (individual liberty). For a person to truly be free, the state becomes an obstacle. That is why people want to move past it. The goal is freedom; dismantling the state is just one of the resulting consequences.

Fair enough. But what comes next once the state is gone? And just as importantly: how do we actually get there?

At the end of the day, we need to be clear about what we're actually talking about here, because unfortunately, it seems like very few people in this thread actually grasp the concept of anarchy.

Anarchy isn't some tool used to liberate the individual from society; it’s actually a way to liberate society from the individuals within it.

The whole idea revolves around a society that refuses to recognize any kind of "corrective authority," driven by one pretty straightforward principle:

So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
Voltaire

Anarchy has nothing to do with lawlessness, bloody revolutions, or constant activism. You can't force anarchy into existence through power; it happens when people take personal responsibility and simply stop acknowledging authority.

See, accepting authority is essentially admitting that we aren't capable of looking after ourselves. Governments and politicians act like glorified babysitters for a massive crowd that behaves, on a collective level, like a bunch of irresponsible teenagers. As long as we keep acting that way—well, it's obvious we're going to need a sitter. And that situation always plays out the same way: the moment there's a demand for a "corrective authority," you create a vacuum for political ambition. And let's be honest, that vacuum is usually filled by the exact type of people least qualified for the job—people who won't hesitate to use any means necessary to chase their own interests.

Once people finally wake up from this collective adolescence and realize that politics and democracy are about as real as Santa Claus and forest fairies—that's when you'll see true anarchy, or a society truly free from the whims of individual tyrants!

Hey, could you please run that one more time? 😉

wearyhawk83 said:Thanks for the feedback! There's always room for different interpretations, but my comment wasn't meant to be a dictionary entry—I was trying to jump into the conversation with a specific goal in mind. If I actually wanted to drop a formal definition, I could have pulled ten scholarly versions off Google in two seconds.

And hey, saying "the roots of morality lie in empathy" isn't my own deep wisdom; whether it's 100% true doesn't even matter to me. For my purposes, it was plenty enough to mention so I could clarify what I was getting at in the bigger picture.

Maybe try looking at people's posts a bit more constructively? If you try to see the point through the author's eyes, you might lose that urge to push your own views or just hunt for an argument. Honestly, if I personally wanted to spend my time nitpicking everyone's posts, I could probably just move my consciousness into my MacBook's software. 🙂

I can tell you've got a massive vocabulary and a ton of knowledge, and you're super eloquent, so I'm sure you'll catch my drift on how I view this.

Thanks again for the critique! Even if it wasn't constructive in its wording, I'm betting the intention was there. 😉

Don't mention it!

The issue here isn't really about the formal definitions themselves, but rather the actual meaning and the "direction of action." Empathy isn't an "action" you perform; it's an experience you undergo—and honestly, that’s not just some trivial semantic nitpick or a debate over word choice.

What you're saying is a completely inaccurate interpretation of what empathy means, and frankly, it's a total mischaracterization of how empathy actually manifests itself.

"The roots of morality lie within empathy"—that isn't my own profound wisdom, and whether it's objectively true doesn't even matter to me; it's more than enough for me to bring it up to clarify my intent within this broader context.

It doesn't matter "whose wisdom" it is—what matters is whether it makes sense, or if that "wisdom" is actually just nonsense. For a discussion to work, we need to deal with facts; otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels, shouting nonsense without any real direction or progress.

Maybe try looking at other people's posts through a more constructive lens. If you try to see things from the author's perspective, you might find you lose that urge to constantly push your views or hunt for a counterpoint.

And what exactly is "constructive" about reaching a conclusion based on faulty assumptions and wrong interpretations?

I’m not trying to force anything on anyone, and I truly couldn't care less if you decide to change your mind or not. My only concern is that you aren't spreading misinformation to others.

If you want to facilitate actual change, maybe think a little less and spend a moment actually considering what the words being discussed mean... if possible, before you dive headfirst into a debate.

Because if I personally wanted to play devil's advocate against someone's post, they might as well move their entire setup into the software of their laptop.

When I feel the need to push back, you'll know. Right now, I'm simply correcting you by offering a different interpretation, which is pretty much the whole point of having a discussion. If that bothers you, then maybe don't engage in the discussion at all.

I can see you possess a rich vocabulary and significant knowledge, so you are quite eloquent; therefore, I have no doubt you will understand my words and my intent.

No... I still don't get the purpose of drawing conclusions based on incorrect and unfounded premises. Honestly, I think it's a complete failure—a total waste of time and a waste of space on a web server!

Thanks again for the feedback—even if you didn't mean for it to be constructive, I'm betting the intention was definitely there.

The thing is, being constructive isn't just about what you intend to do, and having an opinion isn't quite the same thing as actually understanding the subject matter.

wearyhawk83 said:From what I gather, the rough difference between compassion and empathy is pretty simple: compassion is basically identifying with someone else's vibe or emotions. Empathy takes that a step further by adding an actual reaction to the situation. So, if you see someone struggling, being compassionate means you get where they're coming from and maybe adjust your behavior to be respectful of their situation—though how much you do varies wildly. But empathy? That’s feeling for them *and* taking action, like giving them a hug or doing something tangible to make their life easier. To me, the roots of true morality are buried right there in empathy.
Honestly, when it comes to debating empathy versus compassion, I don't think we need to overanalyze the definitions too much. You can just look them up online. What really matters is actually living by them every day, which is something you almost never see nowadays. Especially in massive American cities—you could have someone literally dying on a sidewalk in NYC or LA, and a sea of people could walk right past without lifting a finger. Sure, some might feel bad for them, but only the empathetic ones are actually going to step up and help.
Also, let's be real: the capacity for empathy and compassion is hardwired into our brains. Some people are just born with those specific neural pathways being less developed, which can make them more prone to violence or just being totally out of touch. I'm not trying to excuse extreme behavior, but for the vast majority of us, these qualities are there; it just comes down to how much we choose to nurture them. That's where you see someone's true maturity and "goodness." It’s honestly a tragedy how we've all collectively forced this frantic pace of life on ourselves using excuses like, "Oh, my schedule is just too packed." (Again, that's the majority, obviously there are always outliers). Everyone claims life is moving too fast to stop and care about anyone else, but most people aren't even conscious of what they're running toward anymore. They've just fallen into this mindless loop and they're weirdly comfortable with it. But hey, if that's how they want to live, that's their call. They found their ego boost in hollow things, just like I found mine in my own pursuits. At the end of the day, it's a personal choice, and nobody has the right to judge.

The first part of that is sort of on the mark, but the second half misses the target entirely.

empathy
The word dates back to 1903, translating the German *Einfühlung* (from *ein* "in" + *Fühlung* "feeling"), which was actually coined back in 1858 by the German philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-81) from the Greek *empatheia* "passion"—derived from *en-* "in" + *pathos* "feeling" (check out *pathos* if you want more context). It originally stems from a theory regarding how we appreciate art. We didn't start using "empathize" as a verb until 1924, and "empathic" popped up as an adjective around 1909.

If sympathy is basically an affinity toward a person—you know, our subjective perception of them—then empathy can't possibly be an action; it has to be an experience, too!

Plus, compassion isn't just about mirroring someone else's feelings—that's way too simple. The reality of compassion is much more nuanced than that.

Think about it this way: imagine we're sitting in a board meeting at a big firm like Microsoft, and I hear through the grapevine that you're being laid off because your role is being automated. In that exact moment, I feel compassion for you, even though you don't even realize yet that you're losing your job and your paycheck.

So, compassion ISN'T just identifying with someone's mood. It’s actually a cognitive quality—it comes from your ability to project yourself into the specific circumstances another person is facing. That allows you to form your own internal understanding of their position, rather than just blindly "copying" whatever emotional vibe they happen to be putting out.

The roots of morality are hidden within empathy.

I disagree.

fadedbison17 said:I wasn't talking about pros and cons of anarchy—I was talking about seeing anarchy as a principle used to achieve SOMETHING. Let me rephrase so it hopefully clicks...
Do me a favor and just focus for a second... relax... drop the tension in your shoulders and neck... don't rush through this... just breathe... while you read.

When I said "negative," I meant viewing anarchy as a principle where the main goal is being AGAINST something.
...
When I said "positive," I meant viewing anarchy as a principle where the main goal is working FOR something.

It seems like you're stuck seeing anarchy strictly as a tool to fight the government, so then you're lost once the government is gone. Totally understandable given your perspective...
...
Deep breath... exhale... and just try to flip the script for a moment and see anarchy as a principle for building something. Forget about the state disappearing for a sec... that's just one byproduct of what you're actually after. What you really want is freedom... *your* freedom. That means being able to do whatever makes you happy. ... So, what makes you happy? ... See, that's the whole point of anarchy.

You're free to decide for yourself what's best for you. And then, you have the freedom to go out and make it happen however you see fit.
Maybe that sounds a little scary... being totally on your own... nobody telling you what you should or shouldn't do... but maybe you'll dig it... the excitement... imagining all the possibilities open to you... You're free to choose what YOU want... That's what freedom is...

Get it? 😉

Actually, I don't buy that for a second—because the moment you're forced to make a choice, you aren't truly free!

The idea that "freedom" means having a set of options to pick from is basically the capitalist "holy grail"—and honestly, it's usually just a convenient excuse used to justify forcing democratic elections on places like Iraq. Just because they're picking an option right now doesn't mean they actually have any real agency.

Does that make sense?

says:
The whole anarchist movement doesn't actually lay out a blueprint for building a "healthy and balanced" society—it just tells us we need to tear down what they call "flawed knowledge, toxic values, and broken institutions."

Come on, don't be stubborn—just take a look at what this guy has to say about anarchism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s

Nature doesn't inherently possess any deep significance or intrinsic value—it just exists. It only starts to gain meaning or "value" based on how useful it turns out to be to us. Humans, on the flip side, don't really have any grand purpose beyond just staying alive. Everything we do ends up being about reshaping the world into a tool to serve that one goal of self-preservation.

When you look at the big picture, pragmatism actually feels much closer to positivism than it does to Enlightenment-style utilitarianism.

So, where exactly—if anywhere—does this version of pragmatism part ways with existentialism?

hollowtinker18 said:With all due respect, I'm curious who this "we" actually refers to... and what kind of leverage we actually have to block their stupidity if... ?

Best,

Don't sweat it too much... whoever they're referring to will know exactly who it is. 🙂

Quincy:

...and what kind of ways could they have been blocked from their idiotic antics, if...?

Look, I didn't say we could actually stop "them"... I’m just saying it’s high time we step up, take some responsibility, and quit holding our breath waiting for idiots to suddenly start acting like reasonable, productive adults.

Honestly, it’s an ethical obligation for those of us who actually know what we're doing—we can't just let the incompetent run the show. Knowledge comes with a certain level of duty, you know? And let's face it, idiots are inherently irresponsible.

Mark Torres14 said:Quincy : Vance

Following your logic here.
If idiots actually have the power and the money, then the world of idiots is the only reality that matters. They managed to grab both. "Our world" (the non-idiots) is just a fantasy based on ideals. It has zero connection to the actual world run by idiots.
The real question is: can you sit on both sides? Can you actually hold onto power and money while keeping your imagination and principles intact?😉

I mean, it's pretty obvious, isn't it? The world is basically run by empty-headed, overly ambitious morons who would happily sell their own mothers for a single barrel of oil or a shipping container full of weapons.🙄

"Our world" (the world of people who aren't idiots) is built on imagination and desire—it really has nothing to do with the "real" world (the one run by idiots).

But as long as those "non-idiots" are forced to live inside the world created by the "idiots"—we're absolutely tethered to them!

The real question is: can you actually sit on two different chairs at once? Can you possess power and wealth while still holding onto your imagination and your desires?

That's not quite the right way to look at it.

All we really need to do is for the "non-idiots" to simply stop cooperating with the "idiots." See, the problem is that those guys can barely calculate the square root of their own IQ, let alone maintain any kind of power without leaning on the help of the "non-idiots."

The idiots aren't actually the ones at fault... the fault lies with us for letting them get into this position in the first place.😉

I’m going to give this everything I've got 🙂

velvetrider said:Thanks. N'Dug Just because someone's making noise doesn't mean they're actually right—and honestly, they aren't. I mean, what, we're just supposed to accept it because it happens? Like, give me a break.
Is a thief really just the guy who gets caught, rather than the one actually doing the stealing? I mean, maybe—I don't know, just a thought. It’s kind of a weird way to look at it, I guess, but if you aren't getting nabbed, are you even really a thief in the eyes of the law? Or are you just... successful? It’s all a bit gray, isn't it?
If someone messes you up by accident—like they just weren't thinking or they were out of it—I guess you could call that a mistake or maybe even just some weird stroke of bad luck. But if someone is out to get you on purpose, day after day... man, what do you even call that kind of sickness?
Is it actually because of some kind of sickness, or just that nagging fear that someone might stumble upon the survival bunker you've been building under your house?
Can I get an answer?

Was Kostović actually a decent minister? I mean, I guess it depends on who you ask—it’s one of those things where everyone seems to have a different take depending on their own politics, right? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't... honestly, it's hard to say for sure without digging through all the old news cycles.
I mean, look, I don't really care if the person smoking ends up kicking the bucket or whatever—that’s their business—but what really gets to me is having to breathe in that stench myself. You know what I mean? It’s just gross.
The brain is pretty much capable of rerouting certain functions whenever it feels like it—it’s wild how that works. But honestly, you can always tell when someone is doing something wrong, even if they're just straight-up criminals or dealing with serious mental health issues. They might feel great about what they're doing in the moment—like, the internal satisfaction is there—but the moral compass just... disappears. I guess the actual amount of bad stuff being done stays exactly the same, even if they've managed to trick themselves into feeling okay about it.
Love and hate... they're basically two sides of the same coin, I guess. It’s all just intense energy, really. But the thing is—and this is the part that actually matters—you’ve always got the power to choose how you react. If you don't have that agency, then honestly? You might as well just roll over and accept it.
I mean, look... murderers aren't actually the biggest criminals out there. Or wait—scratch that—I’m probably wrong again. Maybe I am. It’s just one of those things where you think you have it figured out, then you realize the scale is totally different.

Interceptors... I guess you finally learned something you never would have figured out on your own. You see now that there actually is a way out.
The rest of this post isn't even worth a comment, honestly. I guess maybe someone out there in their own little world of historical delusions might actually find something to say about it.

If you actually look at history... it's pretty straightforward. Like, you could just look at oil prices over the last year so I don't have to waste my breath explaining the basics. You've got that weird fund in a country like Greece, and eventually, the bridge will be built.
Anyway... what do you do for a living?

Living with a chronic illness—it’s just one of those things that changes everything about how you navigate the world, isn't it? It isn't just a single bad day or a passing flu; it's this constant, underlying weight that stays with you through the highs and the lows. It's like trying to run a marathon while carrying around a heavy backpack that you can never quite set down—you get used to the strain, sure, but you never actually forget it's there. It affects the little things, too—how much energy you have when you wake up, whether you can make it through a full workday at the office, or even if you'll feel up to grabbing dinner with friends later in the week. You start learning this whole new language of listening to your body, constantly checking in to see where your "battery" is at. Some days you're cruising along, and other days, it feels like the engine just won't turn over, no matter how much you coax it. It’s a deeply personal journey, and honestly, it takes a lot of mental grit to manage that uncertainty every single day.

velvetrider said:Thanks. N'Dug Just because someone's making noise doesn't mean they're actually right—and honestly, they aren't. I mean, what, we're just supposed to accept it because it happens? Like, give me a break.
Is a thief really just the guy who gets caught, rather than the one actually doing the stealing? I mean, maybe—I don't know, just a thought. It’s kind of a weird way to look at it, I guess, but if you aren't getting nabbed, are you even really a thief in the eyes of the law? Or are you just... successful? It’s all a bit gray, isn't it?
If someone messes you up by accident—like they just weren't thinking or they were out of it—I guess you could call that a mistake or maybe even just some weird stroke of bad luck. But if someone is out to get you on purpose, day after day... man, what do you even call that kind of sickness?
Is it actually because of some kind of sickness, or just that nagging fear that someone might stumble upon the survival bunker you've been building under your house?
Can I get an answer?

Was Kostović actually a decent minister? I mean, I guess it depends on who you ask—it’s one of those things where everyone seems to have a different take depending on their own politics, right? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't... honestly, it's hard to say for sure without digging through all the old news cycles.
I mean, look, I don't really care if the person smoking ends up kicking the bucket or whatever—that’s their business—but what really gets to me is having to breathe in that stench myself. You know what I mean? It’s just gross.
The brain is pretty much capable of rerouting certain functions whenever it feels like it—it’s wild how that works. But honestly, you can always tell when someone is doing something wrong, even if they're just straight-up criminals or dealing with serious mental health issues. They might feel great about what they're doing in the moment—like, the internal satisfaction is there—but the moral compass just... disappears. I guess the actual amount of bad stuff being done stays exactly the same, even if they've managed to trick themselves into feeling okay about it.
Love and hate... they're basically two sides of the same coin, I guess. It’s all just intense energy, really. But the thing is—and this is the part that actually matters—you’ve always got the power to choose how you react. If you don't have that agency, then honestly? You might as well just roll over and accept it.
I mean, look... murderers aren't actually the biggest criminals out there. Or wait—scratch that—I’m probably wrong again. Maybe I am. It’s just one of those things where you think you have it figured out, then you realize the scale is totally different.

Interceptors... I guess you finally learned something you never would have figured out on your own. You see now that there actually is a way out.
The rest of this post isn't even worth a comment, honestly. I guess maybe someone out there in their own little world of historical delusions might actually find something to say about it.

If you actually look at history... it's pretty straightforward. Like, you could just look at oil prices over the last year so I don't have to waste my breath explaining the basics. You've got that weird fund in a country like Greece, and eventually, the bridge will be built.
Anyway... what do you do for a living?

So, you're asking if Hitler built those concentration camps out of pure fear? It’s an interesting way to look at it—trying to find the psychological root behind such massive, systemic horror. If we're talking about the mindset driving that kind of madness, it wasn't just simple fear; it was more like this toxic, paranoid obsession with control. It’s like when someone becomes so terrified of losing their grip on a situation that they start building walls—not just physical ones, but entire systems designed to crush anything they perceive as a threat. They convince themselves that total domination is the only way to stay safe, even though that very paranoia is what eventually leads to their own destruction. It’s less about being "afraid" in the way we usually think of it, and more about a pathological need to eliminate any possibility of opposition.

Is it possible that this whole phenomenon is actually a bit bigger than just your narrow little perspective?

velvetrider said:Thanks. N'Dug Just because someone's making noise doesn't mean they're actually right—and honestly, they aren't. I mean, what, we're just supposed to accept it because it happens? Like, give me a break.
Is a thief really just the guy who gets caught, rather than the one actually doing the stealing? I mean, maybe—I don't know, just a thought. It’s kind of a weird way to look at it, I guess, but if you aren't getting nabbed, are you even really a thief in the eyes of the law? Or are you just... successful? It’s all a bit gray, isn't it?
If someone messes you up by accident—like they just weren't thinking or they were out of it—I guess you could call that a mistake or maybe even just some weird stroke of bad luck. But if someone is out to get you on purpose, day after day... man, what do you even call that kind of sickness?
Is it actually because of some kind of sickness, or just that nagging fear that someone might stumble upon the survival bunker you've been building under your house?
Can I get an answer?

Was Kostović actually a decent minister? I mean, I guess it depends on who you ask—it’s one of those things where everyone seems to have a different take depending on their own politics, right? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't... honestly, it's hard to say for sure without digging through all the old news cycles.
I mean, look, I don't really care if the person smoking ends up kicking the bucket or whatever—that’s their business—but what really gets to me is having to breathe in that stench myself. You know what I mean? It’s just gross.
The brain is pretty much capable of rerouting certain functions whenever it feels like it—it’s wild how that works. But honestly, you can always tell when someone is doing something wrong, even if they're just straight-up criminals or dealing with serious mental health issues. They might feel great about what they're doing in the moment—like, the internal satisfaction is there—but the moral compass just... disappears. I guess the actual amount of bad stuff being done stays exactly the same, even if they've managed to trick themselves into feeling okay about it.
Love and hate... they're basically two sides of the same coin, I guess. It’s all just intense energy, really. But the thing is—and this is the part that actually matters—you’ve always got the power to choose how you react. If you don't have that agency, then honestly? You might as well just roll over and accept it.
I mean, look... murderers aren't actually the biggest criminals out there. Or wait—scratch that—I’m probably wrong again. Maybe I am. It’s just one of those things where you think you have it figured out, then you realize the scale is totally different.

Interceptors... I guess you finally learned something you never would have figured out on your own. You see now that there actually is a way out.
The rest of this post isn't even worth a comment, honestly. I guess maybe someone out there in their own little world of historical delusions might actually find something to say about it.

If you actually look at history... it's pretty straightforward. Like, you could just look at oil prices over the last year so I don't have to waste my breath explaining the basics. You've got that weird fund in a country like Greece, and eventually, the bridge will be built.
Anyway... what do you do for a living?

Do you honestly get that I can smell the refinery every time you pump gas into your car? It’s like the scent follows you home. And don't even get me started on the sight of those massive industrial feedlots—it makes my stomach turn just thinking about the meat you eat, let alone the leather on your shoes.

Should I keep going with this, or did you manage to catch my drift?

Look, if I haven't made it clear enough yet... I can always just sit down and draw it out for you. ☕

Quincy:

Look, Interceptori... you’ve finally stumbled onto something here—something you probably wouldn't have ever wrapped your head around otherwise. You're starting to see that a real solution actually exists. The rest of this post isn't even worth a response—honestly. It’s just someone rambling in their own little bubble of historical fiction, completely detached from reality.

Any time you try to pin the entire weight of a tragedy on just one single person, it feels like a massive act of hypocrisy—honestly, it’s just pure denial. Nobody lives their life in some kind of social vacuum, right? We aren't born on isolated islands. If a society creates the very conditions that drive an individual toward those kinds of extreme actions, then that society is at least just as responsible as the person standing there in the middle of it all. It's a systemic issue, not just a solo performance.

It’s always so much easier for you to just call for someone to take a bullet to the head than it is to actually face the music—you know, acknowledging that you're at least partially responsible for how things turned out. Honestly, this whole thing feels like nothing more than a smug, middle-class attempt to scrub your own conscience clean. You’re just dressing up your guilt in these fancy, high-minded words, acting like some sort of modern-day inquisitor hiding behind a thin veil of secular superiority. ☕

Just dig into some history... it’s all pretty straightforward if you look at it. For instance, you could just track oil prices over the last year—I don't want to waste anyone's time explaining the basics here. You've got those weirdly structured funds, similar to how some government stimulus programs operate, and eventually, the infrastructure will follow. By the way... what do you actually do for a living?

What does any of this have to do with how much responsibility society bears for individual crimes?

Look, someone who is hungry enough—they're going to steal. So, who's really at fault for that "crime"? Why is that person starving in the first place? Is society somehow off the hook?

It’s pretty obvious we aren't talking about moral guilt here. You punish the thief to protect YOUR own stuff from them, but at the end of the day, YOU are the one responsible because they have nothing to eat, which leaves them with no choice but to steal.

Mark Torres14 said:That’s not even a thesis, it’s just a plain old fact.
The real philosophical question is why we even allow idiots to get their hands on technology—especially high-end stuff?
What kind of social or individual failsafe could actually stop that from happening?

So, look—the issue isn't actually the tech itself or what it can do—it's the sheer incompetence of the people using it.

What kind of social or individual safeguard could we actually put in place to stop this from happening?

The responsibility lies with anyone who actually knows what they're doing. We shouldn't be handing over advanced tools to people who don't have a clue, but to make that happen, we’d have to fix our broken relationship with money. Because, let’s face it—in this country, the biggest idiots usually happen to be the ones sitting on the most cash.

As long as the competent folks keep selling their innovations to those who don't deserve them—mostly because they're being squeezed by the money and influence those people wield—we're all going to stay stuck under the thumb of a few wealthy, reckless fools.

Tyler Reyes86 said:Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Israel is a secular state. If their entire judicial system were actually based on Leviticus, then we could start comparing Israel to a kharijite caliphate.

Edward Flores4 As specified by Tyler Reyes86:
Vatican City is, quite frankly, a Christian state—and let’s be honest, it functions as little more than a messy political platform for green agendas and international crime.

Vatican City is such a grotesque political construct; it’s honestly detrimental to any region where it tries to exert its influence. It stands as the last remaining Western bastion of sheer stubbornness and primitive patriarchy. But anyway, let's get back to the actual topic at hand. One of the commenters here called Fritzl a caricature of patriarchy, which—if we're being honest—isn't actually accurate. It isn't a distortion of the concept at all; rather, it's a perfect reflection of reality. Given his psychological makeup, Fritzl is an authentic *pater familias* straight out of an archaic era, possessing absolute authority over his family members and his various subordinates.

Jewish state or a state of Jews?

There has been ongoing debate in Israel on the character of the state, regarding whether it should enshrine more Jewish culture, encourage Judaism in schools, and enshrine certain laws of Kashrut and Shabbat observance.

Having been created within the sphere of international law as the instrument for Jewish self-determination, the question of whether Israel is to maintain and strengthen its status as a state for the Jewish people, or transition to being a state purely for "all of its citizens", or identify as both — and, if both, how to resolve any tensions that arise from their coexistence — captures these polarities. Israel has, to date, steered a course between secularism and Jewish identity, usually depending on who controls the Israeli High Court of Justice.

Look, I'm not the one making this up—I'm just following the conversation. 😉

Vatican City is such a bizarre political entity, and honestly, it does quite a bit of damage to the regions where it tries to exert influence. It stands as the last remaining Western stronghold of pure stubbornness and primitive patriarchy.

So, when you think about it, all three of these dogmas have established political and legal platforms. Islam might be the most decadent of the bunch, sure, but that doesn't make the other two any better... they're just slightly less terrible!

Anyway, getting back to the actual topic at hand. One participant called Fritzl a caricature of patriarchy, which isn't really accurate. It’s not an exaggeration; it’s actually a perfect reflection of reality. In terms of his psychological makeup, Fritzl is essentially an authentic *pater familias* straight out of an archaic era—someone who believes he holds absolute authority over his family members and everyone else under his thumb.

I'm with you there. It’s not a caricature at all; the patriarch is par excellence!

The Holocaust is being exploited for political gain here. From that perspective, the whole thing is an unproven fabrication. Now, that doesn't mean there weren't victims at all—of course there were. Having said that... I’d really appreciate it if you stopped pushing these loaded arguments, because it feels like you're just chasing some personal vendetta or rooting for the Jews. Honestly, I couldn't care less about either one of those things.

As for religion, you've missed the mark again... Israel is a "Jewish state"... which makes it the equivalent of any "Islamic state," except Israel is built on Judaism rather than Islam. Look at Vatican City—it’s a Christian state, plain and simple, acting as a massive political platform for environmentalists and international racketeers. So... all three of these desert dogmas, based on the hallucinations of some dehydrated camel driver, have their own states and their own political agendas.

Since I'm assuming you're just going to keep peddling these biased premises, I'll take this chance to say goodbye and let you know I have no intention of continuing this discussion. Either you're completely misinformed... or you're just being willfully ignorant.

Take care!