Personal freedom vs. hypocritical laws...

Rebecca Cox2 said:Modern social laws aren't particularly efficient. Tribal social laws work incredibly well. They work because they are rooted in natural laws and the fact that they don't just prevent bad behavior (for both the individual and the tribe/society), but instead attempt to restore the status quo to something close to normal after a violation occurs. Those laws are designed for humans (and the tribe), whereas our current laws are designed for the system (and the system couldn't care less about people or society)...

Can you actually draw a parallel between a tribe and our civilization? Highly unlikely... sure, we are all human, but the scale is massive. That’s why it’s so difficult to apply their rules to us..

Rebecca Cox2 said:Absolute freedom doesn't exist, so it wouldn't destroy anyone. Honest people would stay honest, mostly honest people would stay mostly honest, and criminals would remain criminals—there would just be far fewer of them, because consciousness shifts based on circumstances. In other words, as long as these living conditions exist (regulated by these specific laws), human consciousness will remain this way. If the environment changed, the consciousness of the majority would change too. I say the majority because the minority (intellectuals, artists, those with strong "spirit," etc.) don't really need that—those types of people shift their consciousness with much smaller changes in circumstance...

Criminals would gain more power and operate with fewer constraints, which suits them perfectly... honest people would have to defend themselves. That's just how it works..

Rebecca Cox2 said:Different topic, but briefly...

A child has an instinct for self-preservation; they won't just burn themselves. When Mom says "don't touch, you'll get burned," the kid interprets that as Mom EXPECTING them to get burned, so they strive to meet that expectation. It’s the same logic with running away from Mom—if she starts chasing, the kid thinks, "She expects me to run." ALL OTHER DESCENDANTS don't run from their parents; they stay close. They do it because biological law dictates that moving away decreases survival odds (due to predators). Human infants are built this way (we're mammals, after all), and the only ones who act differently are our babies in civilized society...

Exactly. This confirms my point: natural laws and social laws aren't the same thing. Even if children in certain tribes don't run, our kids in the US do. It's that same issue from before—you can't apply those laws here now... because it isn't the same...

Rebecca Cox2 said:Why wouldn't that change if our environment changed? Why wouldn't people realize it's better to stand on a balcony than to chase prey (which is usually why people rush)?

Because society is far too stubborn to allow 4 billion people to change like that... in any capacity...

You talk about free society, yet the penalties are still right there waiting for you....
It isn't really freedom of choice if you’re constantly rushing because you know one wrong move could land you behind bars for life.
It’s just rule by fear, which is how every society has functioned since the beginning of time. Nothing would actually change. You might as well just tighten the existing laws.... Personally, I don't have an issue with that. But this whole "freedom" argument doesn't hold water. Anarchy represents the perfect societal structure—absolute freedom—but that requires absolute consciousness and morality to back it up. However, people are still too terrified to function without some kind of authority, some higher power, or a legal system looming over them...
The biggest proof of that is religion.
P.S. Have I compromised anyone else's freedom if I rob a store (while it's closed, obviously), or if I film people surreptitiously? If I drop trash on the floor? If I insult others? Or if I spray graffiti on building walls?

If you die, your family—or society, if you don't have one—has to compensate the surviving members of the affected family under certain conditions (for instance, maybe half of the household income paid out over 20 years or something similar)...

I fail to see how that's fair. Why should a family be forced to pay for something they had nothing to do with? (Though, granted, there will be plenty of funeral expenses to deal with since they just lost someone they loved)

David Martin said:You talk about a free society, yet we still have penalties....
That isn't freedom of choice if you’re afraid to drive fast because you might end up behind bars for life.
It's just rule by fear, just like every other society in history. Nothing would actually change. We'd probably just end up making the existing laws even harsher....

I don't think hiking the penalties would actually slow anyone down.
The best move would be limiting public roads to 50-50 milesmph, then building dedicated tracks where speed enthusiasts can go all out.

David Martin said:Anarchy is the perfect societal model—absolute freedom that requires absolute awareness and morality. But people are still terrified when they don't see an authority figure, a force, or a law standing over them...
Religion is the clearest proof of that.

David Martin said:P.S. Am I infringing on someone else's freedom if I rob a Macy's (closed, obviously), or if I film people secretly? If I litter? If I insult others? If I spray paint a building?

No, but that doesn't really have anything to do with morality or awareness (if that's how you look at it).

David Martin said:I don't see how that's fair. Why should a family have to pay for something they had nothing to do with? (They'll already have enough to deal with regarding funeral costs after losing a loved one)

Agreed.

Rebecca Cox2 said:That’s exactly the point though. Maybe you'll finally get it...

Facts. But look, if you're looking at a 35% utility rate, it's actually pretty easy to justify a move like that.

But just looking at the examples—sticking with traffic laws for a sec, even though the data is basically the same for repeat offenders—it barely works for the people it's actually supposed to reach. You know, the ones who don't get the whole connection between having freedom and actually being responsible for it.

Honestly, half the stuff we do is just because everyone else is doing it. Traditions. Habits. Sometimes those things are actually useful. Of course, you gotta write laws rationally, not like the mess they made with marijuana laws, for example.

How many times have you scrolled through the local news and read about some tragedy caused by someone who’s already lost their license five times for DUI, speeding, or blowing through red lights?

Man, there’s that classic American thing where you get three strikes. Like, you get caught a third time and you get absolutely wrecked. That kind of thing is actually a pretty strong way to make the idiots finally understand the point.

It’s true we don’t have the exact numbers on how many people actually learn their lesson after one or two fines and start driving by the book, but when it comes to crime, the stats show that people who get thrown into the "criminal justice system" have a much higher chance of reoffending (the stats are pretty much the same across all US states on this).

That's just another side of the story. I'd say it's more about them adopting a new cultural pattern that fits them better than the one they were basically kicked out of. Add in the whole stigma thing, etc... It's a total madhouse. Anyway, what do you think would actually make those guys listen? Like, what's the move for dealing with repeat offenders?

gentlecanyon92 said:Can you really draw a parallel between tribal societies and our modern civilization? It feels like a massive stretch... I mean, at the end of the day, we're all human, but there is such an enormous difference. That’s why it's so difficult to apply their rules to us today..

If a parallel exists—and perhaps it must—it lies between our current civilization and those cultures still living in tribal structures. Why? Because just a few thousand years ago (and even a few hundred years ago here in the USA), we lived in those exact same types of tribes. In fact, 20,000 years ago, every single person—absolutely everyone from the very first to the last—lived in a tribe. Things only started shifting about 10,000 years ago. This means we spent roughly 10 or 15 times longer living as the humans we recognize today within tribal settings (since the emergence of *Homo sapiens sapiens*). If we consider *Homo sapiens* themselves as "human" rather than just an ancestor, that multiplier jumps to 50. Essentially, for the last 500,000 years, the vast majority of the population lived tribally; only the last 10,000 years (just 5% of that total time) saw a change. We can only say that the populations living in tribal vs. "civilized" ways reached parity within the last 500 to 1,000 years (which is a mere 1-2% of the timeline).

So, tell me: which set of laws is our brain actually wired to understand and follow? Our modern civil laws, or our tribal instincts?

And let's not even get started on the fact that we have always lived according to natural laws—because if we hadn't, we wouldn't have been surviving in the first place...

gentlecanyon92 said:Criminals would end up with more authority and fewer restrictions, which suits them perfectly... while honest people would be left constantly having to defend themselves. That's just how it goes..

You're thinking that way because you're operating within our current mindset—a mental framework shaped by today's specific rules and laws. But isn't that exactly what new legislation could fix? Of course, this would require leveraging the internet as the ultimate reservoir of wisdom and information—a tool that's incredibly difficult to suppress through force when people don't like what they see (and I believe that's exactly what Bradley Fisher20 is working toward)...

gentlecanyon92 said:Exactly. It just proves my point—natural laws and social laws aren't the same thing. If children in certain tribes don't run around constantly, while our "civilized" kids never stop moving, then what? You can't just impose top-down rules here and expect them to work now... because it’s simply not the same reality.

Kids run wild because mothers haven't learned how to guide them to stay close. Isn't it strange how we have endless experts, expensive courses, books, and parenting shows, yet in tribal societies, every mother knows exactly how to raise her child without any outside help (besides her own mother)?

gentlecanyon92 said:It's because society is far too stubborn to change its ways for 4 billion people... in any way at all.

I see. But if that's true—if we refuse to evolve our lifestyle and our mindset—then won't the laws of nature eventually force our hand? Wouldn't it be much less painful if we chose to change ourselves first?

Rebecca Cox2 said:If there is any valid parallel to draw, it’s between our modern civilization and the various tribal cultures still existing today. Why? Because a few thousand years ago—and even just a few centuries ago here in the USA—we lived in those exact same types of tribes. If you go back 20,000 years, every single human being, from the very first to the last, lived in a tribe. It’s only in the last 10,000 years that things began to shift. That means we spent roughly 10 or 15 times longer living as the humans we recognize today within tribal structures. If we consider Homo sapiens to be "human" rather than just an ancestor, that multiplier jumps to 50. Essentially, for the last 500,000 years, the vast majority of the population lived tribally; only the last 10,000 years—about 5% of that total time—saw a change. We can only say that the populations living tribally versus "civilized" lifestyles reached parity within the last 500 to 1,000 years (roughly 1-2% of the timeline).

So tell me: which set of laws is our brain actually wired to grasp and follow? Civilized ones, or tribal ones?

Not to mention the fact that we have always lived according to natural laws—because if we hadn't, we wouldn't have been alive in the first place...

Yeah, I get your point, but I think the massive differences that emerged over those tens of thousands of years mean people simply think differently now...
You claim a woman in a tribe knows how to raise a child while our mothers don't—that we need books, whereas tribes could just write them down. But I honestly question how much actual positive impact books and all that stuff have on parenting. To me, things seem to be getting worse, not better.🙂
Couldn't the same logic apply to laws? I highly doubt a person in a tribe reacts to things the same way someone in a modern civilization does.

gentlecanyon92 said:Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but I think those massive gaps created over tens of thousands of years are just too wide to bridge..

The differences are significant, certainly, but they aren't insurmountable.

gentlecanyon92 said:and that people just think differently...

Well, that’s exactly the point. It isn't that people think differently; it's that they are processing new data within a new environment that shifts far too rapidly (even for our highly adaptable consciousness). Our conscious and subconscious minds simply weren't built for the lifestyle most of the world's population leads today.

gentlecanyon92 said:how a woman in a tribe knows how to raise a child while our moms don't.. we need books, whereas tribes could just write them down.... —that's what you're saying.. yet I don't know how much truth or positive impact books and such actually have on raising kids.. to me, things seem to be getting worse, not better🙂

Parenting is—for the most part—declining, but that's because mothers (and fathers) lack the time to listen to their instincts and provide children with what they truly need: continuity from birth until the moment they start exploring the world and navigating life on their own.

gentlecanyon92 said:couldn't the same be applied to laws... I don't believe a person in a tribe reacts the same way a person in civilization does

And again—that is precisely the issue. We react identically to some things and differently to others. Do you know which variable makes the biggest difference? Stress. Specifically, the chronic exposure to stress and high-pressure situations that we face in modern civilization, compared to the almost total absence of long-term stress in tribal societies.

When it comes to short-term stress—interestingly enough—our physiological response is identical, and the decisions we make in those moments are generally sound, regardless of the circumstances...

If you found permaculture interesting, you'll likely find the CONTINUUM CONCEPT... appealing as well.

Turns out our totally hypocritical, half-baked traffic laws actually have some measurable perks—like, way fewer people dying on the road.
I hear this all the time, honestly. It’s like those super liberal laws that basically trust citizens to be free and responsible just end up being weaker (evolutionarily speaking 😉) than these annoying, hypocritical rules that treat us more like toddlers or teenagers going through puberty.
Maybe there's actually something big to be said about Americans after all.
Too bad.