Posted by Kazper at 6:39pm Jan 25 '07To not break our [Foundation Law] and to create... [pragmatic laws] we must [unmanipulatedly] consent to abide by laws that we do not consent to. We have to do this because if we don't some of us will be, technically, being violated. I don't see any way around this to make laws and so a functioning society. So, if you can see the pleasure in consenting to abide by laws you do not consent to in order to have a functioning society (especially if the proposed society's structure is appealing) then you can [unmanipulatedly] give your consent.
But, I think, the [Foundation Law] should always be referenced when considering [pragmatic laws], simply because it should be easier to get majority consent for a [pragmatic law] if it's closer to the [Foundation Law] which everyone understands...
Cause: the fewer the laws are and the less restrictive they are Effect: the easier they are for people to remember and to abide by Effect: and so, fewer conflicts should arise.
If you believe in the [Foundation Law] then you should be able to coexist with anyone who abides by it.
To have a functioning society that consists of different ideologies it would seem to make sense that a majority of these different ideologies should be in agreeance.
Find your vision and then, if you think you need to, find those who share it.
One who does not directly or indirectly [unmanipulatedly] consent to something does so because they see no pleasure in doing so. So, one who has something done to them without their unmanipulated direct or indirect consent derives no pleasure from the action. Since we are pleasure seeking beings we should be able to easily relate to a violated one and imagine how we would feel in such a situation. It's the perfect law... Though the actual law seems to be: anything that does not bring one pleasure is not allowed, since we do everything for pleasure... and this is not perfect... (Still have to get it out much better.)
Something that does not bring one pleasure should not be done by one or done to one by another.
If it's true that we all act from pleasure then how does one justifiably judge another who's pleasure is a cause with an effect or an effect that one finds unpleasureable...? How does one's pleasure or lack thereof justify one to judge the pleasure of an other...?
A problem with determining what is wrong for one to do by what an other finds unpleasureable is that the other may find many, many things unpleasureable which the one really, really thinks should still be allowed. So, the same problem exists for trying to determine what is wrong for an other to do by what one finds unpleasureable to do...
I am looking for a universal law, from what I think is the truth (that we all act from pleasure), that would be the one thing I demand from anything to allow me to coexist with anything. My and anything's particular ways could be very different but still encompassed by this universal law...
Violation comes from pleasure. Defense from violation comes from pleasure. Both are justified in the truth that we act from pleasure... If this is true then any act or law is justified since they come from pleasure...
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
But, I think, the [Foundation Law] should always be referenced when considering [pragmatic laws], simply because it should be easier to get majority consent for a [pragmatic law] if it's closer to the [Foundation Law] which everyone understands...
Cause: the fewer the laws are and the less restrictive they are Effect: the easier they are for people to remember and to abide by Effect: and so, fewer conflicts should arise.
If you believe in the [Foundation Law] then you should be able to coexist with anyone who abides by it.
To have a functioning society that consists of different ideologies it would seem to make sense that a majority of these different ideologies should be in agreeance.
Find your vision and then, if you think you need to, find those who share it.
One who does not directly or indirectly [unmanipulatedly] consent to something does so because they see no pleasure in doing so. So, one who has something done to them without their unmanipulated direct or indirect consent derives no pleasure from the action. Since we are pleasure seeking beings we should be able to easily relate to a violated one and imagine how we would feel in such a situation. It's the perfect law... Though the actual law seems to be: anything that does not bring one pleasure is not allowed, since we do everything for pleasure... and this is not perfect... (Still have to get it out much better.)
Something that does not bring one pleasure should not be done by one or done to one by another.
If it's true that we all act from pleasure then how does one justifiably judge another who's pleasure is a cause with an effect or an effect that one finds unpleasureable...? How does one's pleasure or lack thereof justify one to judge the pleasure of an other...?
A problem with determining what is wrong for one to do by what an other finds unpleasureable is that the other may find many, many things unpleasureable which the one really, really thinks should still be allowed. So, the same problem exists for trying to determine what is wrong for an other to do by what one finds unpleasureable to do...
I am looking for a universal law, from what I think is the truth (that we all act from pleasure), that would be the one thing I demand from anything to allow me to coexist with anything. My and anything's particular ways could be very different but still encompassed by this universal law...
Violation comes from pleasure. Defense from violation comes from pleasure. Both are justified in the truth that we act from pleasure... If this is true then any act or law is justified since they come from pleasure...
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Ruminations. - Kazper